Supreme Court (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Seek Criminal Investigation of Justice Thomas Over Travel and Gifts

      by

      The senators said the Supreme Court justice’s failure to disclose lavish gifts and luxury travel showed a “willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws.”Two top Democratic senators have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation of Justice Clarence Thomas for possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws.Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Ron Wyden of Oregon sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland last week asking that he appoint a special counsel to investigate Justice Thomas’s failure to disclose lavish gifts, luxury travel, a loan for a recreational vehicle and other perks given to him by wealthy friends.The request further intensified efforts by Senate Democrats to scrutinize Justice Thomas’s conduct at a time when they are trying to force Supreme Court justices to comply with stricter ethics and financial disclosure rules.“We do not make this request lightly,” the senators wrote in a joint statement. “Supreme Court justices are properly expected to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to comply with the federal tax code.”“No government official should be above the law,” they added.Specifically, the senators asked that a special counsel investigate whether Justice Thomas violated federal ethics and tax laws by failing to disclose as income the $267,000 he received in forgiven debt for a luxury R.V.The senators wrote that Justice Thomas had “repeated opportunities” to explain his failure to disclose the gifts to the Senate Finance Committee, of which Mr. Wyden is the chairman, as well as the Judiciary Committee’s panel on federal courts, which Mr. Whitehouse leads.They also accused Justice Thomas of showing a “willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws,” behavior that they said surpassed that of other government officials who have been investigated by the Justice Department for “similar violations.”A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Independent Streak Marked Supreme Court Term

      by

      The junior member of the court’s six-justice conservative supermajority often questioned its approach and wrote important dissents joined by liberal justices.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, 52, is the youngest member of the Supreme Court and the junior member of its conservative supermajority. Last week, she completed what was only her third full term.Yet she has already emerged as a distinctive force on the court, issuing opinions that her admirers say are characterized by intellectual seriousness, independence, caution and a welcome measure of common sense.In the term that ended last week, she delivered a series of concurring opinions questioning and honing the majority’s methods and conclusions.She wrote notable dissents, joined by liberal justices, from decisions limiting the tools prosecutors can use in cases against members of the Jan. 6 mob and blocking a Biden administration plan to combat air pollution. And she voted with the court’s three-member liberal wing in March, saying the majority had ruled too broadly in restoring former President Donald J. Trump to the Colorado ballot.The bottom line: Justice Barrett was the Republican appointee most likely to vote for a liberal result in the last term.That does not make her a liberal, said Irv Gornstein, the executive director of Georgetown University’s Supreme Court Institute.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Stumbles Over His Words as He Tries to Steady Re-Election Campaign

      by

      President Biden sought to steady his re-election campaign by talking with two Black radio hosts for interviews broadcast on Thursday, but he spoke haltingly at points during one interview and struggled to find the right phrase in the other, saying that he was proud to have been “the first Black woman to serve with a Black president.”He also stumbled over his words during a four-minute Fourth of July speech to military families at the White House, beginning a story about former President Donald J. Trump, calling him “one of our colleagues, the former president” and then adding, “probably shouldn’t say, at any rate” before abruptly ending the story and moving on.Mr. Biden made the mistake on WURD radio, based in Philadelphia, as he tried to deliver a line that he has repeated before about having pride in serving as vice president for President Barack Obama. Earlier in the interview, he boasted about appointing the first Black woman to the Supreme Court and picking the first Black woman to be vice president.The president also made a mistake earlier in the interview when he asserted that he had been the first president elected statewide in Delaware. He appeared to mean that he was the first Catholic in the state to be elected statewide, going on to speak admiringly of John F. Kennedy, a Catholic.Mr. Biden and his top aides have said the president’s activities in the coming days are part of a series of campaign efforts designed to prove to voters, donors and activists that the president’s debate debacle was nothing more than what he has called “a bad night.”Ammar Moussa, a spokesman for Mr. Biden’s campaign, criticized the news media for making note of the president’s stumbles.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Qué sigue para Trump tras el fallo de la Corte Suprema sobre la inmunidad presidencial?

      by

      Analistas y observadores ya preveían, a grandes rasgos, la decisión que establece que los presidentes merecen protección considerable por sus actos oficiales. Trump lo proclamó como una victoria.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Un sistema jurídico que le ha propinado golpes dolorosos a Donald Trump en los últimos seis meses le acaba de dar una de las mejores noticias que ha recibido desde que empezó su campaña.El lunes, la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos, cuya mayoría calificada conservadora se consolidó con los magistrados nominados por Trump, le concedió al expresidente inmunidad parcial ante procedimientos judiciales ahora que intenta eludir una acusación formal del fiscal especial Jack Smith en relación con sus esfuerzos para impedir la transferencia de poder tras las elecciones de 2020.Desde hace meses, tanto analistas políticos como observadores de la corte ya esperaban, a grandes rasgos, este fallo: que los presidentes tienen derecho a una protección considerable por sus actos oficiales. Sin embargo, Trump lo proclamó como una victoria.“Este es un gran triunfo para nuestra Constitución y democracia. ¡Estoy orgulloso de ser estadounidense!”, escribió Trump en puras mayúsculas en su plataforma Truth Social.La decisión implica que es casi una certeza que un juicio sobre el caso se postergue hasta después de las elecciones de noviembre, y si Trump gana, es casi seguro que el Departamento de Justicia descarte el caso, según personas cercanas al exmandatario.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Escalates Long Rise of Presidential Power

      by

      Beyond Donald J. Trump, the decision adds to the seemingly one-way ratchet of executive authority.The Supreme Court’s decision to bestow presidents with immunity from prosecution over official actions is an extraordinary expansion of executive power that will reverberate long after Donald J. Trump is gone.Beyond its immediate implications for the election subversion case against Mr. Trump and the prospect that he may feel less constrained by law if he returns to power, the ruling also adds to the nearly relentless rise of presidential power since the mid-20th century.It had seemed like a constitutional truism in recent years when more than one lower-court opinion addressing novel legal issues raised by Mr. Trump’s norm-breaking behavior observed that presidents are not kings. But suddenly, they do enjoy a kind of monarchical prerogative.“The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in an outraged dissent joined by the court’s other two liberals. “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”Dismissing those worries, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, argued that presidents stand apart from regular people, so protecting them from prosecution if they are accused of abusing their powers to commit official crimes is necessary.“Unlike anyone else,” he wrote, “the president is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Partly Shielded From Prosecution in Election Interference Case

      by

      The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to some level of immunity from prosecution, a decision that may effectively delay the trial of the case against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines.Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had immunity for his official acts.“The president is not above the law,” the chief justice wrote. “But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent executive. The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision was gravely misguided.“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” she wrote. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”The justices said there was a crucial distinction between official and private conduct and returned the case to the lower courts for additional analysis.The court’s ruling raises the possibility of further delay in the case against former President Donald J. Trump on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Declines to Rule on Tech Platforms’ Free Speech Rights

      by

      The justices returned both cases, which concerned state laws that supporters said were aimed at “Silicon Valley censorship,” to lower courts. Critics had said the laws violated the sites’ First Amendment rights.The Supreme Court on Monday avoided a definitive resolution of challenges to laws in Florida and Texas that curb the power of social media companies to moderate content, leaving in limbo an effort by Republicans who have promoted such legislation to remedy what they say is a bias against conservatives.Instead, the justices unanimously agreed to return the cases to lower courts for analysis. In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that neither lower appeals court had properly analyzed the First Amendment challenges to the Florida and Texas laws.The laws were prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.Supporters of the laws said they were an attempt to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship. The laws, they added, fostered free speech, giving the public access to all points of view.Opponents said the laws trampled on the platforms’ own First Amendment rights and would turn them into cesspools of filth, hate and lies.The two laws differ in their details. Florida’s prevents the platforms from permanently barring candidates for political office in the state, while Texas’ prohibits the platforms from removing any content based on a user’s viewpoint.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More