Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We did it in cattle’: Alabama Republicans’ bungled response to IVF patients

      by

      On Wednesday morning, some 200 Alabama in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients, doctors and advocates descended on the Alabama state house. Wearing orange and pink shirts for infertility awareness, they carried a variety of handmade signs: “You can’t cuddle an embryo”. “I just want to be a mom”.For these people and thousands of others in the state, the last two weeks have been tumultuous.Following the Alabama supreme court’s recent ruling that frozen embryos are considered “children”, IVF clinics in the state have paused their services, leaving people who were in the process of treatment in limbo. Embryo shipping companies have also stopped servicing the state, which means that patients who want to transfer their frozen embryos out of Alabama are unable to do so.The rally concluded with some direct conversations between advocates and lawmakers. In one such interaction, the Republican state representative Ben Harrison told families that a “solution” would be to freeze the sperm and egg separately, instead of freezing embryos, likening the former procedure to a process used on cows.“My personal opinion is that we keep them apart and only bring them together for what you need and what you’re willing to implant,” Harrison said. “We did it in cattle all the time.”The interaction pointed to the disconnect between families who are undergoing the IVF process, doctors who provide IVF services and lawmakers who may not understand the intricacies of and science behind IVF, but who ultimately can decide whether or not it remains legal.Dr Mamie McLean of Alabama Fertility in Birmingham has become one of the most vocal opponents of the supreme court decision. Flanked by other doctors and IVF patients, she spoke to those attending the rally before they headed into the state house.“As an infertility physician, I am used to difficult conversations, but these last two weeks have been absolutely heartbreaking,” she said. “Due to the uncertainty posed by the supreme court ruling, we have had to cancel embryo transfers for patients who are longing and praying for a child. We call on the state of Alabama to provide immediate, complete and permanent access to IVF care for the women and families of Alabama.”Resolve, the national infertility group that helped organize the rally, provided pamphlets and advised attendees on how to speak to legislators. “What happens here today in these offices will be looked at by the rest of the country,” said Barbara Collura, the group’s president and CEO. “This potentially could be a roadmap for other states to restrict access to IVF or a roadmap for how to protect access to IVF and family building. Please use your voice.”Collura said that some desperate families were leaving the state for treatment.“You’re on these medications for weeks and they cost a lot of money. It’s not covered by insurance for most of these people,” she said of the drugs used during IVF treatment. “You can’t just stop and start up next week, plus we don’t know when this will get fixed.”‘It could end my journey’Elizabeth Goldman, who stood with McLean and other advocates during the rally, was diagnosed with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome when she was 14. The rare disorder means that she was born without a uterus; doctors told her she would never be able to carry her own child. When the University of Alabama launched a uterus transplant program in 2020, Goldman applied, moving with her husband from Mobile to Birmingham (near the school’s campus) in the hope of being able to have a child. After receiving the uterus transplant and undergoing several rounds of IVF treatment and transfers, Goldman was able to conceive. Her daughter, who was with her at the rally, was born in October 2023.Transplant patients are able to keep the uterus for just one or two deliveries, because of the volatility of a foreign organ, Goldman said. She estimates that she has taken about 20,000 pills since her transplant 22 months ago to keep her body from rejecting the uterus.Her medical team cleared her to carry a second child, and had planned to proceed with her transfer this March. But the supreme court decision has put that at a standstill. Goldman was on her way to a transfer appointment when she found out through a notification that her clinic had closed.“With all of the transplant meds I take, it can start to cause kidney damage and other health problems,” she said. “It’s not a life-saving transplant, but a life-giving transplant. So basically, right now I’m healthy. My kidneys are good. But if it continues to drag on, it could end my journey.”Jamie Heard and Deidra Smith drove to the rally from Birmingham hoping to speak to legislators face to face. Heard used IVF to give birth to her now two-year-old son. She had already started her cycle for a second child when the news of the supreme court’s decision broke. Her clinic cancelled her appointments in the middle of treatment.“It was heartbreaking,” Heard said. “The emotions for the past few days – I feel like I’ve been grieving a loved one, that’s how heavy my emotions have been.”Brittany Pettaway and her husband Byron, of Montgomery, currently have eight frozen embryos. She said that this was their only chance of becoming parents. They attended the rally hoping that legislators would make things go “back to literally how it was two weeks ago”.“We’re just trying to protect that right, and what should be a natural, God-given ability to do,” she said. “It’s surreal, I feel like I’m waiting for someone to say it was a joke, a really horrible emotional nightmare.”‘I don’t know what the answer is’After the rally ended, advocates queued outside to make their way into the state house to speak to legislators directly. The floors with offices for senators and representatives were full of people dressed in orange and pink.Outside one office, a group of families engaged the Alabama state auditor, Andrew Sorrell, in a conversation about their struggles. As auditor, Sorrell reports the state’s receipts, claims and payments, taxes and revenues to the governor.“I don’t know exactly what the answer is, but we’ve got to find some way to protect the IVF industry while also maintaining our pro-life stance,” he said.Sorrell suggested women only make as many embryos as they want to use. The advocates explained “the numbers game”, in which a family may produce dozens of eggs, but ultimately only have one or two viable, healthy embryos. Sorrell also suggested the state pay to make it easier for people to adopt frozen embryos.Following the near immediate backlash to the court’s decision, Republicans across the country initially were mum on the issue. But as clinics across Alabama began to close, they turned heel, speaking out in support of IVF. Alabama’s attorney general promised not to prosecute IVF clinics or patients, while the former president Trump also spoke in support of the procedure. On Wednesday, several bills that would preserve IVF moved forward in the Alabama legislature. One bill, which will progress to the Alabama senate after it received a vote of 94-6 on Thursday, would protect clinics from lawsuits.But there is no comprehensive solution to preserving IVF in the state and, in the meantime, patients and families, even those mid-treatment, are left waiting. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme court to hear Trump immunity claim in election interference case

      by

      The US supreme court agreed on Wednesday to take up the unprecedented claim that Donald Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution in the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, throwing into jeopardy whether it goes to trial before the 2024 election.The justices set oral arguments for the week of 22 April to consider a recent ruling by a three-judge panel at the US court of appeals for the DC circuit, which categorically rejected Trump’s immunity claim in a decision earlier this month.Trump’s criminal case will remain on hold until the supreme court ultimately rules on the matter, inserting it into the politically charged position of potentially influencing whether Trump will go to trial before the presidential election in November.The unsigned order said the court intended to address at oral arguments “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office”.In the federal 2020 election case, Trump faces a four-count indictment in Washington DC brought by the special counsel, Jack Smith, that charges him with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct the congressional certification of the election results, and violating rights.Trump sought to have the charges dismissed last year, arguing in a 52-page filing that the conduct he was charged with fell under the so-called “outer perimeter” of his official duties, which meant he could not be prosecuted because of the broad protections afforded to the presidency.The motion to dismiss contended that all of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat detailed in the indictment, from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification of Biden’s victory to organizing fake slates of electors, were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.At the heart of the Trump legal team’s filing was the extraordinary contention that not only was Trump entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of Trump’s intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment.The arguments were rejected by the presiding US district judge Tanya Chutkan, and subsequently by the three-judge panel at the DC circuit, which wrote in an unsigned but unanimous decision that they could not endorse such an interpretation of executive power.“At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches,” the opinion said. “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”Trump’s lawyers settled on advancing the immunity claim last October in large part because it is what is known as an interlocutory appeal – an appeal that can be litigated pre-trial – and one that crucially put the case on hold while it was resolved.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPutting the case on hold was important because Trump’s overarching strategy has been to seek delay, ideally even beyond the election, in the hopes that winning a second presidency could enable him to pardon himself or allow him to install a loyal attorney general who would drop the charges.The involvement of the supreme court now means the case continues to remain frozen until the justices issue a ruling. And even if the court rules against Trump, the case may not be ready for trial until late into the summer or beyond.The reason that Trump will not go to trial as soon as the supreme court rules is because Trump is technically entitled to the “defense preparation time” that he had remaining when he filed his first appeal to the DC circuit on 8 December 2023, which triggered the stay.Trump has 87 days remaining from that period, calculated by finding the difference between the original 4 March trial date and 8 December. The earliest that Trump could go to trial in Washington, as a result, is by adding 87 days to the date of the supreme court’s final decision.With oral arguments set for April, a ruling might not be handed down until May. Alternatively, in the worst case scenario for the special counsel, the supreme court could wait until the end of its current term in July, which could mean the trial might be delayed until late September at the earliest. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Democrats to force vote on protecting IVF access across the US

      by

      Senate Democrats are moving to push through a bill that would protect Americans’ access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, after an Alabama supreme court ruling that frozen embryos are children led to the closure of a number of infertility clinics in the state.The Democratic Illinois senator Tammy Duckworth said she would try to force a vote on the legislation on Wednesday which would establish a federal right to IVF and other fertility treatments that are at risk in the post-Roe era. Duckworth’s two children were conceived through IVF.“I’m headed to the Senate floor to call on my colleagues to pass via unanimous consent my Access to Family Building Act, which would ensure that every American’s right to become a parent via treatments like IVF is fully protected, regardless of what state they live in – guaranteeing that no hopeful parent or doctor is punished,” Duckworth said at a news conference on Tuesday.Duckworth’s move comes as Democrats vow to make IVF a campaign issue as they look to squeeze Republicans and highlight the continuing fallout of the overturning of Roe v Wade.“I warned that red states would come for IVF. Now they have. But they aren’t going to stop in Alabama. Mark my words: if we don’t act now, it will only get worse,” Duckworth added.The bill would require unanimous consent in order for it to pass, meaning that any one senator can block its passage. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said it was unlikely to receive unanimous consent from the chamber to rush the bill through.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhile many Republican lawmakers registered disappointment over the Alabama ruling, at least one conservative senator was expected to object.Blumenthal said Democrats would not be deterred. He would not say what the next legislative steps would be, but he said Democrats, who control the Senate, would look for other ways to protect IVF and reproductive healthcare.“The IVF dilemma for Republicans is they are down a path that is not only unpopular, it’s untenable as a matter of constitutional law and basic moral imperative, and we’re going to pursue it vigorously,” Blumenthal said.“Today’s vote, the effort to seek a unanimous consent, we know is unlikely to be successful. Failing today is only the prelude to a fight ahead on women’s reproductive care centered on IVF and other steps that have to be taken to protect basic rights.” More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      If Trump wins, he’ll be a vessel for the most regressive figures in US politics | Katrina vanden Heuvel

      by

      Fifty years ago, then governor Ronald Reagan headlined the inaugural Conservative Political Action Conference. He spoke of the US as a city on a hill, an example of human virtue and excellence, a divinely inspired nation whose best days were ahead.The speakers at last week’s conference were decidedly less inspiring. A lineup of extremists, insurrectionists and conspiracy theorists gathered for panels like “Cat Fight? Michelle v Kamala” and “Putting Our Heads in the Gas Stove”. At CPAC, you can drink “Woke Tears Water”, buy rhinestone-studded firearms and play a January 6-themed pinball machine.But it would be wrong to dismiss CPAC as a crackpot convention. It is also a harbinger of what a second Donald Trump presidency would bring, influenced by a consortium of self-proclaimed Christian nationalists and reactionary dark money groups like the Heritage Foundation who see Trump as their return ticket to relevancy.The Heritage Foundation has poured $22m into Project 2025, their plan to gut the “deep state” and radically reshape the government with a souped-up version of the unitary executive theory, which contends that the president should be allowed to enact his agenda without pesky checks and balances. To paraphrase one speaker at CPAC: “Welcome to the end of democracy.”The Heritage Foundation’s policy agenda is disturbingly radical, even by the standards of the modern Republican party. They want to dismantle the administrative state, ban abortion completely at the state and federal level, and, as always, cut taxes for the rich. They would put religious liberties over civil ones, and Christian rights over the rights of women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people and really anyone who does not look and think exactly like they do.As Trump himself said in an alarmingly theocratic speech last week: “No one will be touching the cross of Christ under the Trump administration, I swear to you.” And we have no reason to doubt him. Russell Vought, a radical involved with Project 2025 who speaks with Trump at least twice a month, is a candidate to be the next White House chief of staff.Vought works closely with the Christian nationalist William Wolfe, a former Trump administration official who has advocated for ending surrogacy, no-fault divorce, sex education in schools and policies that “subsidize single motherhood”. The Heritage Foundation has even called for “ending recreational sex”.Media coverage of Trump tends to focus on his mounting legal woes (nearly half a billion in damages and counting) and increasingly bizarre rants (magnets don’t work underwater). But such an approach misses the point. We can’t risk focusing on spectacle at the expense of strategy, and he has made his strategy perfectly clear.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe has said he will be a dictator on “day one” and “go after” and indict those who challenge him. He’s running on a 10-point “Plan to Protect Children from Leftwing Gender Insanity”. He’s promised to send federal troops into Democratic-run “crime dens”, by which he means New York City and Chicago.He will have advantages in the courts this time around, too. Groups such as the Article III Project – an advocacy group for “constitutionalist” judges – are making sure of it. A3P is led by Mike Davis, a Trump loyalist lawyer who has been floated for attorney general. (You know, the role that Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr weren’t extreme enough for?) He has promised: “President Trump’s next generation of judges will be even more bold and tough.” And in the meantime, his organization has taken out TV ads attacking the judges and prosecutors in Trump’s criminal trials as “activists” who have “destroyed the rule of law”.If the Article III Project gets what they want, judges hearing challenges to Trump’s proposals will be judges he appointed. Not only will his policies be more dangerous and dogmatic, they’ll be better designed to withstand judicial scrutiny, especially in a friendly court.Look no further than the Alabama supreme court, which ruled last week that frozen embryos are children, imperiling the legality of IVF and foreshadowing far worse. Trump, clearly panicking, has distanced himself from this decision, but as long as he continues to nominate radical activist judges – and he will – it is nothing more than posturing.As was the case during his first term, Trump will serve as a vessel for some of the most regressive figures in American politics. And unlike last time – when he was incentivized to get re-elected legitimately – he will be unencumbered by any notion that he should abide by democratic norms or heed moderating voices. January 6 was a purity test, and he’s since cleared his ranks of people who’ve even whispered disapprovingly.Despite all of this, Trump is leading Biden in many polls. Most projections put the race at 50/50 at best. If Trump and his extremist cronies prevail in 2024, Project 2025 will be under way this time next year, stripping millions of Americans of our freedoms. The end of democracy, indeed.
      Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of the Nation and serves on the Council on Foreign Relations More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Alabama is using the notion that embryos are people to surveil and harass women | Moira Donegan

      by

      Something that’s important to remember about last week’s ruling by the Alabama supreme court, which held that frozen embryos were persons under state law, is that the very absurdity of the claim is itself a demonstration of power. That a frozen embryo – a microscopic bit of biological information that can’t even be called tissue, a flick laden with the hopes of aspiring parents but fulfilling none of them – is equivalent in any way to a child is the sort of thing you can only say if no one has the power to laugh at you. The Alabama supreme court is the final court of review in that state. It cannot be appealed. For the foreseeable future, frozen cells in Alabama have the same legal status there as you or I do. Is this an absurd elevation of the status of an embryo, or an obscene degradation of human beings? The answer, of course, is both.The decision immediately halted almost all IVF procedures in Alabama. Aspiring patents there – including women who had undergone rounds of injected hormone treatments and the invasive, gruelingly painful egg retrieval process in order to create the embryos – will now be unable to have the material implanted in an attempt to create a pregnancy. Hundreds of other frozen embryos – those that are not viable, or not needed by families that are already complete – can now not be destroyed as is typical IVF practice. They need to be continually stored in freezers, or what the Alabama supreme court refers to, in Orwellian style, as “cryogenic nurseries”, a term you almost have to admire for the sheer audacity of its creepiness.But the concept of embryonic personhood, now inscribed in Alabama law, poses dangers well beyond the cruelty it has imposed on the hopeful couples who were pursuing IVF in Alabama, before their state supreme court made that impossible. If embryos and fetuses are people, as Alabama now says they are, then whole swaths of women’s daily lives come under the purview of state scrutiny.Forget about abortion, which would automatically be banned as murder in any situation where fetuses are considered persons – Alabama already has a total abortion ban, without exceptions for rape, incest or health. Embryonic personhood would also ban many kinds of birth control, such as Plan B, IUDs, and some hormonal birth control pills, which courts have said can be interpreted as working by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. (In fact these methods work primarily by preventing ovulation, but facts are of dwindling relevance in the kind of anti-abortion litigation that comes before Republican-controlled courts.)Further, if embryos and fetuses are children, then the state may have an interest in protecting their lives that extends to controlling even more of women’s daily conduct. Could a woman who is pregnant, or could be pregnant, have a right to do things that might endanger her embryo in a situation where an embryo is her legal equal, with a claim on state protection? Could she risk this embryo’s health and life by, say, eating sushi, or having some soft cheese? Forget about the wine. Could she be charged with child endangerment for speeding? For going on a jog?These scenarios might sound hyperbolic, but they are not entirely hypothetical. Even before the Alabama court began enforcing the vulgar fiction that a frozen embryo is a person, authorities there had long used the notion of fetal personhood to harass, intimidate and jail women – often those suspected of using drugs during pregnancies – under the state’s “chemical endangerment of a child” law, using the theory that women’s bodies are environments that they have an obligation to keep free of “chemicals” that could harm a fetus or infringe upon its rights.Using this logic, police in Alabama, and particularly in rural Etowah county, north-east of Birmingham, have repeatedly jailed women for allegedly using drugs ranging from marijuana to meth while pregnant – including women who have claimed that they did not use drugs, and women who turned out not to be pregnant. In 2021, Kim Blalock, a mother of six, was arrested on felony charges after filling a doctor’s prescription during a pregnancy; the state of Alabama decided that it knew better than her doctor, and they could criminalize her for following medical advice.This is not an extreme example: it is the logical conclusion of fetal personhood’s legalization – the surveillance, jailing and draconian monitoring of pregnant women, an exercise in voyeuristic sadism justified by the flimsy pretext that it’s all being done for the good of children. Except there are no children. Lest this seem like an idea that will necessarily be corrected by political response, or by the ultimate intervention of a federal court on the question, remember that Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs referred repeatedly to “unborn human beings”.There are several ways this supreme court could ban abortion nationwide, and they do not need to enforce fetal personhood to do so – many rightwing organizations, for instance, are encouraging federal courts to revive the long-dormant Comstock Act, from the 1870s, to ban all abortions. Nor will the ultimate national abortion ban necessarily even come from the courts. Any future Republican president will be under enormous pressure to enact a national abortion ban, and they will have many means at their disposal to do so even without congressional cooperation, be it through the justice department or through the FDA. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in all but name, has floated the idea of a 16-week national ban – a huge restriction on women’s right’s nationwide that would undoubtably be just the opening salvo for even further rollbacks. Meanwhile, his nominal rival, Nikki Haley, responded to the news of the Alabama court ruling by voicing approval of fetal personhood. “Embryos, to me, are babies.”Let’s be clear: they are not. An embryo is not a child. Neither is a fetus. Treating them as such is a legal absurdity that degrades human life and insults the reality of parenthood. But most importantly: there is no notion of when personhood begins that is compatible with women’s citizenship other than birth. If personhood begins while a pregnancy is ongoing – if a person, that is, can be someone enclosed entirely inside another person’s body – then the competition of rights will be humiliatingly, violently, brutally one-sided. None of the opportunities, freedoms or responsibilities of citizenship are available to someone whose body is constantly surveilled, commandeered and colonized by the state like that. No citizenship worth its name can belong to someone who cannot even wield within the bounds of her own skin.It is humiliating to even have to say this: that women matter more than fetuses or embryos, that a frozen cell in a petri dish is not a human being, but we are. It is an absurdity to make this argument, an exhausting waste of our time, a degradation. That, too, is part of the point.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump now owes more than $500m. How will he pay?

      by

      You’re reading the Guardian US’s free Trump on Trial newsletter. To get the latest court developments delivered to your inbox, sign up here.On the docket: Trump’s cash crunchDonald Trump has a lot of major financial decisions to make following Judge Arthur Engoron’s Friday order that he owes more than $350m in penalties in his New York state business fraud case – and the clock is ticking for him to make them.He essentially has two options: pay now, or potentially pay a lot more later.The court gave the former US president 30 days from the verdict, or 17 March, to figure out what to do. But the $350m verdict is only the beginning: Engoron’s decision also ordered Trump to pay additional pre-judgment interest going back as far as when New York attorney general Letitia James began her investigation in March 2019.The attorney general’s office has calculated the interest due so far brings the current total he owes to more than $450m; the statutory 9% annual interest rate will keep accruing at more than $600,000 per week unless Trump puts up the entire amount.Since Trump plans to appeal the verdict, the only ways to pause the interest collection are either to park the full amount in a New York state-controlled escrow account or find a company prepared to help him post a bond that will assure the state he can pay the penalties if his appeals fail – for a hefty fee, of course.It’s unclear if Trump has the cash to post the full amount. Trump said under oath last year that he had roughly $400m in liquid assets, not quite enough to cover what he’d need to put into escrow.As the Guardian US’s Hugo Lowell reported on Monday: “Trump’s preference is to avoid using his own money while he appeals.” But to obtain a bond, Trump would have to find a company willing to do business with him and “would then have to pay a premium to the bond company and offer collateral, probably in the form of his most prized assets”, like his real estate holdings.Trump is also hemmed in by the verdict’s restriction barring his company from applying for a loan from any firm that does business in New York for the next three years, potentially limiting his options to secure the money for that bond.View image in fullscreenAnd don’t forget that this isn’t all he owes in recent court judgments. Trump already put $5.5m into a state-controlled escrow account to cover the first defamation judgment that he owes E Jean Carroll. He owes another $83m to Carroll following a late January federal court ruling that he had defamed her again.Trump has so far declined to say what his plan is. When asked during a Fox News town hall on Wednesday how he plans to pay his legal fines, he instead pivoted to comparing his loss in court to Vladimir Putin’s apparent murder of Alexei Navalny, the Russian strongman’s chief political foe. “It is a form of Navalny,” he remarked, dodging the question.Attorney general James told ABC News on Tuesday that she is prepared to “​​ask the judge to seize his assets” if Trump can’t or won’t pay the amount – including some of his most iconic properties. “Yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day,” she said.It’s unlikely things would get to that point. But while winning the presidency this year could give him power to shut down the federal criminal cases he’s facing, it won’t help him shrug off civil liability in the New York state court.“This is going to stick with him if he does not prevail on an appeal,” Columbia University law professor Eric Talley said.Calendar crunchView image in fullscreenNew York judge Juan Merchan officially set a 25 March start date for Trump’s Stormy Daniels hush money trial last Thursday, positioning it to become Trump’s first criminal case – just weeks after his team expects him to lock up the GOP nomination for president. The trial is expected to last around six weeks, meaning the verdict could arrive sometime in mid-May.The timing of Trump’s three other pending criminal trials are all uncertain, but major developments are expected soon that will give us a much better sense of which, if any, will come to fruition before the election.In Georgia, the election interference criminal trial is in limbo until Judge Scott McAfee rules on whether a potential conflict of interest exists that justifies removing Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis from the case because of her romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she hired for the case. Willis, Wade and others testified in court late last week. McAfee may hold one more hearing on this before making a decision, which could come as early as next week.In Washington DC, the criminal trial relating to Trump’s conduct on and before January 6 hinges on the US supreme court’s pending decision on whether to take up his claim of presidential criminal immunity.If they decide to simply allow a lower court ruling against him to stand, the trial could get back on track for late spring. If they decide to consider the issue, the big question is how fast they decide to do so – an expedited schedule could allow enough time for the trial to take place, but if they take their time it would all but kill the trial’s chances.And in Florida, where Trump is facing criminal charges for mishandling national security documents, Judge Aileen Cannon has scheduled a conference on 1 March to determine whether Trump’s defense motions will push back her originally scheduled 20 May trial start date. (It seems likely it will.)skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWill this matter?View image in fullscreenGuardian US opinion columnist Sidney Blumenthal points out that Trump has run his business empire aground in spite of a huge head start: “The hundreds of millions that Fred Trump bestowed on his son could not prevent him from steering the family legacy on to the rocks.”Meanwhile, Guardian US reporter Sam Levine wonders whether Willis can regain control of the Georgia election interference case after the intense scrutiny of her personal life – even if she’s allowed to stay on. “In the court of public opinion, Trump’s defense lawyers may have already won,” he writes. “Like it or not, Willis has moved to the center of the case. It’s unclear whether she’ll be able to successfully leave the witness box and return to the prosecutor’s table.”And Guardian US reporter George Chidi dives into Willis’ court appearances, arguing that the audience she most cares about (besides the judge deciding the case’s fate) are the Atlanta voters who will decide whether to re-elect her this November. “By showing her grief and rage, she humanizes herself before this audience,” he writes, “which is likely to be sympathetic to the horrors of a Black professional’s love life aired like a reality television show before the American public as a Trump defendant’s legal ploy.”Cronies & casualtiesView image in fullscreenA federal judge threatened to hold former Trump aide Peter Navarro in contempt for refusing to obey her order to return presidential records in his possession to the national archives, and gave him until 21 March to supply them. Navarro is having a rough month: he was already sentenced to four months in prison in a separate case for refusing a subpoena to appear in front of the House January 6 committee, and is expected to begin serving that time in the coming weeks after a judge denied his appeal.View image in fullscreenThe US supreme court rejected appeals from seven Trump 2020 campaign attorneys, including Sidney Powell, to pay legal fees and face other sanctions for filing a lawsuit filled with false claims about that election.What’s next?Thursday The deadline for Trump’s team to file pretrial motions in his Florida classified documents case. Trump’s team has telegraphed that it will file a number of suppressive motions that seek to delay the case.Any day now The US supreme court could decide at any time whether or not they’ll take up the lower court ruling that denied Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in his Washington DC criminal trial.As early as next week The supreme court is expected to rule soon on whether the 14th amendment’s insurrection clause allows Colorado to remove Trump from its presidential ballot. During the court’s oral arguments two weeks ago, the justices indicated they’re highly unlikely to allow this to happen.1 March Scheduling conference in the Florida documents case to determine whether the 20 May trial date that Cannon previously scheduled will stick.17 March Deadline for Trump to appeal the civil fraud verdict.25 March New York hush money trial set to start.Have any questions about Trump’s trials? Please send them our way trumpontrial@theguardian.com More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Fani Willis must prove herself before a judge, her voters and the whole country

      by

      When Fani Willis took the stand to trade sharp elbows with lawyers defending Donald Trump and his co-defendants, she stood before three audiences.But Willis only really cares about two of them.The first is an audience of one: the superior court judge Scott McAfee, who will rule sometime two weeks or so from now on whether Willis, the special prosecutor Nathan Wade and the rest of the Fulton county district attorney’s office will continue to handle the Trump trial, or if instead it will be handed to another attorney chosen by the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia.If Willis is bumped off the case, it almost certainly means there will be no resolution before the US presidential election in November, in which Trump is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee for president again.Willis and her team have been presenting evidence and testimony to rebut questions about financial motivations for pressing the case against Trump by showing how much personal harm Willis and her staff have had to endure in the process. Willis’s father, the venerable civil rights attorney John C Floyd, gave florid testimony today about the death threats and harassment that drove Willis from her home as she prosecuted the case, for example.McAfee recognizes high-drama courtroom confrontations for what they are: irrelevant to the legal question. He must decide if the appearance of impropriety and the legal question of alleged unjust enrichment raised by the defense are sufficient to create an appellate court problem if Trump and others are convicted at trial. Has there been misconduct, and is removing Willis the appropriate remedy under the law if there has been misconduct? That’s the legal question.But it’s not the only issue for Fani Willis, who is up for re-election in 263 days.Until this moment, Willis looked like an unbeatable shoe-in for re-election. She is, arguably, the highest-profile district attorney in the US today, and she’s as recognizable to a Fulton county voter as the president, governor or Georgia’s senators. In a game of name recognition … well, people have stopped mispronouncing her first name in Atlanta now.But the revelation that she had been dating a highly paid office subordinate while working on a trial with the presidency on the line raises questions about her judgment. She may be contemplating a political challenger, who will argue that Willis is not the one to continue the case … assuming it is still in court in November.Her challenge here was to remind voters why they voted for her in the first place: to aggressively confront crime in Atlanta. Willis beat a 20-year incumbent in 2020 amid sharply rising crime and issues with prosecutions by her predecessor. She won in part by arguing that she would get the job done where her previous boss could not.Willis has to make her case to the Fulton county voters that she’s still their best choice. That’s where the sharp elbows and Black cultural callbacks on the stand come from: she’s speaking to the second audience – the primarily Black, majority-female, predominantly Democratic Fulton county electorate who is watching all of this unfold dreading the possibility that the county’s chance to impose justice on the powerful may be slipping through her fingers.By showing her grief and rage, she humanizes herself before this audience, which is likely to be sympathetic to the horrors of a Black professional’s love life aired like a reality television show before the American public as a Trump defendant’s legal ploy.It’s telling, perhaps, that Atlanta’s mayor, Andre Dickens, and the former mayor Shirley Franklin were both in attendance at the hearing on Friday morning, ostensibly as a show of political and moral support for Willis.There is, of course, a third audience. Every other person in the free world.Americans of all political stripes recognize that there’s a lot riding on the outcome of this case. Of all the criminal and civil cases Trump faces today, a conviction in Georgia is the only one for which he is almost certain to do time in prison, because there’s effectively no pardon power to save him. And Trump’s recorded phone call provides powerful evidence for a prosecutor to present to a jury.Voters across the country have a stake in the outcome here. But the only voters that count for Willis’s purposes are the ones that live in Fulton county. And until that changes, she’s not going to care about what they think. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump, the ‘law-and-order’ candidate, is an adjudicated fraudster | Lloyd Green

      by

      The week-that-was will likely weigh heavily on the 45th president for the months and years to come. On Friday, Arthur Engoron, a New York judge, found Donald Trump and his businesses liable for conspiracy and ordered them to pay $355m. On top of that, the court banned Trump and his two adult sons from serving at the helm of any New York company for three years, while imposing a $4m penalty on both of the boys.In a 92-page decision, Engoron also lacerated Trump’s pretensions of credibility. He repeatedly tagged Trump for his allergy to the truth.“Donald Trump rarely responded to the questions asked, and he frequently interjected long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial,” the decision reads. “His refusal to answer the questions directly, or in some cases, at all, severely compromised his credibility.”He added that the court had “found preliminarily that defendants had a propensity to engage in persistent fraud by submitting false and misleading Statements of Financial Condition … on behalf of Donald Trump”.One footnote in the legal judgment went like this: “Peterson-Withorn, Chase. ‘Donald Trump Has Been Lying About The Size of His Penthouse.’ Forbes, May 3, 2017.”For the record, Trump invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination more than 400 times at deposition. “Anyone in my position not taking the fifth amendment would be a fool, an absolute fool,” he said. It is all of a piece.Trump is on a roll, of sorts. One day earlier, Juan Merchan, a second Manhattan judge, set a 25 March start date for Trump’s trial on state-law felony charges. “Stop interrupting me,” the judge scolded the defendant’s legal team.Merchan also denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the underlying 34-count indictment. According to Manhattan prosecutors, Trump purportedly directed hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress, and Karen McDougal, an adult model.But Trump’s streak doesn’t end there. Last week, a US court of appeals rejected his demand for absolute immunity. US presidents are not kings, the court reminded us.“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power,” the unsigned but unanimous opinion read.“We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”Then again, the US supreme court may put the case on ice. We may know more next week.Appeals are expensive. Trump will also need to bond or otherwise secure the mammoth-sized judgment. Interest accrues too. Regardless, others must pay for his sins.The forced departure of Ronna McDaniel from the helm of the Republican National Committee signals that Trump intends to make the RNC a personal piggy bank. After essentially self-financing his primary run in 2016, he turned up his palms to face off against Hillary Clinton. According to campaign finance filings, his political committees have shelled out more than $50m in legal fees.The ex-reality show host has not always been awash in cash. “My net worth fluctuates,” Trump once swore. “It goes up and down with the markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.”His casinos have gone bust, his companies bankrupted a half-dozen times. Restructurings pock his borrowings. Trump University is no more.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFilings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, first uncovered by the Guardian in 2016, placed his liquidity at north of $250m as of mid-2011, his wealth at $4.2bn. This past October, Forbes pegged his worth at $2.6bn. He did not make its iconic 400 richest list. “He’s nowhere near as rich as he boasts, nor as poor as some critics claim.”The value of his assets appears to have shrunk even as his liquidity has grown. “I have over 400 – fairly substantially over $400m in cash,” he recently testified. These days, he’s staring at judgments hovering near $450m.The latest blows come on the heels of January’s $83.3m verdict in E Jean Carroll’s second defamation trial. Heading toward November, the “law-and-order” candidate is an adjudicated predator. Lewis Kaplan, the presiding judge in the Carroll cases, stressed that Trump had sexually assaulted her.Guilty verdicts loom as possibilities in both the hush money and election interference cases. Manhattan juries don’t love him, judging by the size of the recent Carroll verdict. DC juries previously convicted Trump’s cronies Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro and Roger Stone. January 6 defendants have also fared poorly.Trump later pardoned Bannon and Stone. He has vowed to do the same for those who stormed the Capitol in his name.Americans aren’t enamored with a convicted felon sitting in the Oval Office. Then again, they haven’t cottoned to the incumbent. By itself, Friday’s ruling will sway few. On the other hand, wavering voters may get off the fence if a criminal conviction or two follow.Days ago, Trump raged against Letitia James and Engoron. He blasted the attorney general as “corrupt”, the judge as “biased”, the case as “rigged”.It’s been nearly a decade since he hosted The Apprentice. The former reality show host sounds scared. Welcome to the theatre of the real.
      Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York and served in the US Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992 More