The Supreme Court ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant illegally deported despite a withholding order, but the Trump administration refused, citing El Salvador’s jurisdiction. This defiance followed a lower court order and constitutes a blatant disregard for judicial authority. The administration’s actions, including barring AP reporters from the Oval Office, demonstrate a pattern of ignoring court orders. This situation highlights the president’s disregard for the law and raises serious concerns about the rule of law within the United States.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s July ruling affirmed the President’s unrestricted power to remove executive branch agency heads. This power, argued the administration, is crucial for effective executive branch management. The lower court’s intervention was deemed an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers. The filing emphasized the need to prevent lower courts from dictating presidential personnel decisions. This follows a previous Supreme Court decision granting broad presidential immunity.
Read More
President Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, citing its July 1, 2024 ruling granting presidents near-absolute immunity, after a lower court blocked his dismissal of special counsel Hampton Dellinger. The appeal hinges on the Supreme Court’s assertion of the president’s “unrestricted power” to remove executive officers. Acting Solicitor General Harris argued that preventing the president from exercising this power severely harms the executive branch and separation of powers. A lower court judge reinstated Dellinger, criticizing the White House for the disruption caused by the firing.
Read More
Immunity does not shield Trump from the $83 million defamation judgment, according to E. Jean Carroll’s attorney. This assertion directly challenges any claim of presidential or other legal immunity that might protect Trump from the financial consequences of the verdict. The core argument hinges on the principle that even a position of power shouldn’t grant protection against the repercussions of proven wrongdoing, particularly in a civil case involving defamation.
The large sum of money involved underscores the severity of the court’s finding. $83 million represents a substantial financial penalty, and its significance lies not just in the amount itself but in its symbolic weight as a consequence for actions deemed defamatory.… Continue reading
Donald Trump’s pursuit of presidential immunity from state-level civil lawsuits is a significant development, raising serious questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law. His claim centers on the assertion that defending against these numerous lawsuits would be an unacceptable distraction from his presidential duties, hindering the effective functioning of the executive branch.
This argument, however, immediately clashes with the established norms of a functioning democracy. Typically, a president’s business interests are placed in a blind trust, managed independently to avoid such conflicts of interest. The fact that this hasn’t happened under Trump’s administration underscores the unprecedented nature of the situation and highlights the blatant disregard for traditional ethical standards.… Continue reading
Donald Trump’s inauguration marked a historic event, as he became the first president to be sworn in after facing criminal charges related to his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath, following a Supreme Court decision granting presidents immunity from prosecution for actions deemed part of their official duties. Trump’s inaugural address focused on attacking his political opponents and emphasized themes of cultural conservatism and nationalistic expansion. This return to power came after the Supreme Court overturned his previous convictions, effectively shielding him from legal consequences.
Read More
President Biden advocates for a constitutional amendment explicitly removing presidential immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This proposed amendment aims to ensure accountability for all actions taken by a president, regardless of their position. The call for such an amendment follows ongoing debates about executive power and the rule of law. This initiative seeks to clarify and strengthen the principle of equal justice under the law.
Read More
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 137-page report on the January 6th insurrection details substantial evidence against Donald Trump and his associates, sufficient for a conviction were he not a former and potentially future president. The report undermines the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling by highlighting that much of Trump’s conduct was outside his constitutional powers. Furthermore, the report implicitly criticizes the Department of Justice’s policy against indicting a sitting president, suggesting this policy hindered the investigation. The report’s evidence heavily implicates both high-profile and less prominent participants in a coordinated attempt to subvert the 2020 election results.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay his sentencing in the New York hush money case, allowing the proceeding to commence Friday. The court deemed the burden on Trump’s presidential transition “relatively insubstantial,” given the judge’s intent to impose no penalty. Trump’s conviction stems from falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made before the 2016 election, a conviction he contests based on claims of presidential immunity. While Trump will appear virtually, the ruling sparked further ethical concerns surrounding a phone call between Justice Alito and the President-elect prior to the appeal.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke with President-elect Trump the day before Trump’s lawyers petitioned the court to halt his upcoming hush-money sentencing. Alito claims the call, at the request of a former law clerk, solely concerned a job recommendation and did not involve the pending petition. However, the timing raises ethical concerns regarding potential protocol violations given the court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal. Trump’s legal team argues the sentencing would interfere with the presidential transition, citing potential presidential immunity. The Supreme Court will now consider Trump’s petition.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood