Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

Justices ask if House-Trump subpoena showdown is appropriate for courts

A non-ruling would mean the president and the House could both stand to lose

The Supreme Court made a request Monday that hinted the justices might want to back out of the legal showdown over President Donald Trump’s effort to stop congressional subpoenas for his tax and financial records.

With oral arguments set for May 12 on the issue, the Supreme Court asked House attorneys and Trump’s personal attorneys to file briefs about whether the dispute is better left for politicians than the courts — known as the “political question doctrine.”

“It reads like an invitation to make up a way out for the Court,” Georgetown University Law Center professor Joshua Geltzer tweeted. “Let’s hope it’s not.” Continue reading.

Supreme Court dismisses anticipated New York gun rights case because the law in question has been rescinded

Washington Post logoThe Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a major gun rights case from New York because the law in question has been rescinded, disappointing Second Amendment activists and several conservative justices, who said the court had been manipulated.

The decision dismissing the case was unsigned, but three justices filed a dissent.

“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch. Continue reading.

Supreme Court rules non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Monday ruled that defendants in criminal trials can only be convicted by a unanimous jury, striking down a scheme that has been rejected by every state except one.

The court said in a divided opinion that the Constitution requires agreement among all members of a jury in order to impose a guilty verdict.

“Wherever we might look to determine what the term ‘trial by an impartial jury trial’ meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion. “A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict.” Continue reading.

Supreme Court postpones April arguments

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Friday said it would postpone oral arguments scheduled for its April session amid the coronavirus pandemic.

A court spokeswoman said the move was in line with recommended public health guidance in response to the outbreak, which has infected more than 750 people in Washington, D.C., and thousands more in surrounding areas in Maryland and Virginia.

The U.S. has confirmed around 261,000 cases and more than 6,900 deaths. Continue reading.

Supreme Court postpones oral arguments amid coronavirus pandemic

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Monday postponed oral arguments scheduled for its March session, including a potentially landmark dispute over subpoenas for President Trump’s financial records, amid concerns over the coronavirus pandemic.

A court spokeswoman said the move was “in keeping with public health precautions” in response to the outbreak, which has infected 18 people in Washington, D.C., and more than 3,800 nationwide.

“The court will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course in light of the developing circumstances,” the spokeswoman said. Continue reading.

Prominent Republicans mock Trump’s legal claims in Supreme Court brief — and blow up president’s ‘absolute immunity’

AlterNet logoA Supreme Court filing lays bare the deep chasm between prominent Republicans who believe in the rule of law and wannabe president for life Donald Trump, whose says he enjoys absolute immunity from any inquiry into his conduct.

Trump audaciously claims that any crimes he may have committed crimes before assuming office cannot even be investigated, not even if he committed murder, in effect trying to extend the protections of bankruptcy law with which he is so familiar to criminal law. No statute, court decision or our Constitution supports this claim of being above the law.

In a friend of the court brief filed Monday the prominent Republicans argue that Trump cannot block the Manhattan district attorney’s garden variety criminal tax fraud investigation. They note that the issue before the high court is a subpoena for business records held by Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA. The firm says it will comply with the subpoena, but Trump’s lawsuit blocked that.  Continue reading.

DFL Statement on the Supreme Court Hearing Another Challenge to the Affordable Care Act

SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA – Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced it would hear another lawsuit to overturn the Affordable Care Act. This is the latest in a long series of conservative legal attempts to eliminate the popular health care law, and the first to come before the Supreme Court with Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the bench.

If the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act, 266,000 Minnesotans would lose access to health insurance. Nationwide, nearly 20 million Americans could lose access to the care they depend on.

DFL Chairman Ken Martin released the following statement:

“Once again, the health care of tens of millions of Americans is on the chopping block thanks to President Trump and his Republican allies’ relentless assault on the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court hearing another Affordable Care Act case is dire news for Minnesotans everywhere because time and time again, conservative efforts to eliminate the popular health care law have come dangerously close to succeeding. Continue reading “DFL Statement on the Supreme Court Hearing Another Challenge to the Affordable Care Act”

‘Outrageous’: Legal experts condemn Trump for demanding Sotomayor and Ginsburg recusals

President Donald Trump Monday night called on Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse themselves from any cases involving the president, a demand critics denounced as an “outrageous” attack on the nation’s highest legal body.

Trump’s demand came in response to Sotomayor’s scathing dissent in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to allow the president’s so-called “wealth test” for immigrants—also known as the public charge rule—to take effect in Illinois. Sotomayor accused the court’s five conservative justices of favoring one litigant over all others—the Trump administration—in their ruling.

“This is a terrible thing to say,” Trump tweeted of Sotomayor’s dissent. “Trying to ‘shame’ some into voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsburg when she called me a ‘faker.’” Continue reading.

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with ‘public charge’ rule

The Hill logoThe Trump administration can move forward with a rule to make it harder for immigrants who rely on public assistance to gain legal status while a court challenge plays out, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to lift a nationwide injunction on the proposal imposed by a federal judge in New York while the case is playing out in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The rule, from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), would make it easier for immigration officials to deny entry or legal status to people likely to rely on government assistance. Continue reading.