South Korea's impeached President Yoon faces court ruling to decide his fate
By Joyce Lee and Ju-min Park
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea's Constitutional Court will rule on Friday whether to remove or reinstate impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived martial law declaration that sparked a crisis in a country seen as a democratic success story.
Yoon's fate has been hanging in the balance after the court defied expectations of a swift decision on whether to oust him for violating his constitutional duty or reinstate him, instead deliberating for more than five weeks in tight secrecy.
The court is scheduled to deliver its ruling at 11 a.m. (0200 GMT) in a nationally televised session.
Yoon is not expected to attend, but if he is stripped of his presidency, an election must be held within 60 days. If his powers are restored, Yoon faces the challenge of helping Asia's fourth-largest economy navigate the fallout from the stiff tariffs imposed by the United States, its main security ally.
The ruling will cap months of political turmoil that have overshadowed efforts to deal with the new administration of U.S. President Donald Trump at a time of slowing growth.
Separately, 64-year-old Yoon faces a criminal trial on insurrection charges. The embattled leader became the first sitting South Korean president to be arrested on January 15 but was released in March after a court cancelled his arrest warrant citing questions over the procedural legitimacy of the investigation.
The crisis was triggered by his December 3 declaration of martial law, which he has said was needed to root out "anti-state" elements and the opposition Democratic Party's alleged abuse of its parliamentary majority that he said was destroying the country.
He lifted the decree six hours later after lawmakers defied efforts by the security forces to seal off parliament and voted to reject it. Yoon has said he never intended to fully impose emergency military rule and tried to downplay the fallout saying nobody was hurt.
South Korean parliamentary lawyers seeking Yoon's removal compared him to a dictator during the trial at the Constitutional Court, which currently has eight judges with one seat vacant. Under the Constitution, at least six of them must agree for Yoon to be removed.
The wait of more than a month for the decision has exacerbated tensions between the ruling party, with many of its members calling for Yoon's reinstatement, and the opposition, which has said his return would deal a serious blow to the country's constitutional order.
It has also deepened division among the public, with large crowds packing Seoul streets in rallies for and against Yoon's removal, and increasingly heated rhetoric.
Police are bracing for potential violence and plan to mobilise more than 14,000 officers in the capital.
The deep divisions suggest Friday's ruling will do little to ease the tension, analysts have said.
Experts also question whether Yoon, who has been badly bruised by personal scandals and political feuds, would be effective in the remaining two years of his term even if his powers were restored.
The majority of the public backs Yoon's removal, according to opinion polls, although support has ebbed since the initial days after the martial law declaration.
A Gallup Korea poll released last week showed 60% of the respondents saying Yoon should be ousted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal Judge Blocks Trump From Enforcing DEI and Anti-Trans Executive Orders
A federal judge on Monday blocked several of President Donald Trump's executive orders that have threatened federal funding to nonprofits that primarily service LGBTQ+ communities. District Judge Jon Tigar in Oakland, California, issued a preliminary injunction halting three of Trump's anti-DEI and anti-transgender executive orders. Nine nonprofits around the country, including the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, had sued the Trump administration, calling its actions unconstitutional. 'While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the Constitution. And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous,' Tigar wrote in the order. Hard-won queer rights are under attack. HuffPost remains committed to standing with the LGBTQ+ community. Support our work by The federal government therefore cannot withhold funding from grant recipients if they continue programs that promote diversity or service transgender people. The order will remain in effect nationwide while the case continues, and Trump administration's lawyers are likely to appeal. On Jan. 20, Trump's first day in office, he signed an executive order announcing the federal government would only recognize 'two sexes, male and female,' and barred the promotion of 'gender ideology,' a right-wing term used to refer to the existence of transgender people and their rights. Shortly after he also signed two orders directing agencies to terminate federal funding for all diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Almost immediately, nonprofit organizations saw that their contracts, totaling hundreds of thousands and, in some cases, millions of dollars in federal funding, were being canceled. On April 22, the Department of Justice informed FORGE, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit that provides training and support to crime victims, that it was terminating a $749,000 grant to update its toolkit to support transgender survivors of sexual assault. The very next day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notified the Los Angeles LGBT Center, another plaintiff in the suit, that it was terminating a $1 million grant to study new strategies to mitigate the spread of sexually transmitted infections among all populations, but specifically including gay and bisexual men and transgender women, court documents show. 'All of [these organizations] have lost funding because they serve trans people and BIPOC people … For some of these groups, the amount of the budget they are losing is almost 50% of their budget. These are people who do things like give people their HIV meds, feed people, house people,' Kevin Jennings, the chief executive officer of Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ legal advocacy group, told HuffPost ahead of the order. 'So let's be really clear about what the bottom line of these cuts is. People will die. People don't have any place to live, don't have a place to live, adequate nutrition. We consider this a life and death lawsuit,' he added. Over the last six months, advocacy groups have sounded the alarms as Trump has leveraged executive orders to withhold federal funding from universities, nonprofits and medical institutions that specifically service people of color and transgender communities and to scrub federal websites that include data, research, history on those groups. Already, HIV advocates worry that the Trump administration's cuts to the CDC and termination of hundreds of federal research grants on treatment and prevention has reversed the momentum of the decadeslong fight to end the epidemic.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information
On a Friday night in March 2023, Sean Horan called 911 to report that Michael Mendenhall, who runs a staffing agency out of a converted townhouse on Blake Street in Denver, had threatened him with a baseball bat. Based on nothing more than Horan's one-sided account of a confrontation at Mendenhall's townhouse, police officers arrested Mendenhall for felony menacing. To support that charge, Detective Nicholas Rocco-McKeel obtained a search warrant by repeating what another officer told him Horan had said. During the ensuing search of the townhouse, police seized the baseball bat as evidence. Prosecutors dropped the case against Mendenhall less than a week later, and it is not hard to see why: Horan's account of what had happened was inconsistent and improbable. But police never returned the bat, which was a valuable collector's item because it was signed by players at the 2021 Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Denver. That purloined bat is at the center of a case that aims to overturn a controversial 1960 Supreme Court precedent allowing home searches based on hearsay. Mendenhall argues that the warrant authorizing the search of his property was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it relied on thirdhand information rather than Rocco-McKeel's personal knowledge. "The Fourth Amendment must be enforced in its entirety," says Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Mendenhall. Although "the Fourth Amendment bans reliance on second-hand information," she says, "the courts have read that requirement out of the Constitution. We're fighting to bring back the original understanding of this very important protection." Issuing a warrant "is no trivial thing," a brief that Mendenhall recently filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit notes. "Warrants authorize armed government agents to seize persons or comb through their most private spaces. Warrants authorize the government to employ violence to accomplish these goals. There is hardly ever a situation in which the individual is more powerless before the State than when its agents arrive armed with a warrant." Although no one was injured in Mendenhall's case, briefs supporting his appeal note that the consequences of hearsay-based warrants can be lethal, as illustrated by the 2020 death of Breonna Taylor. The circumstances that led to the search of Mendenhall's townhouse suggest the hazards of allowing police invasions of private property based on secondhand information. Around 10 p.m. on March 10, 2023, according to Mendenhall's brief, he was "relaxing after work at the townhouse with a friend when he heard women screaming and a man yelling just outside his front door." Concerned for the women's safety, Mendenhall grabbed his commemorative bat and "opened the door to investigate." He saw "a strange and shabbily dressed man," later identified as Horan, sitting on the stoop of the townhouse with two dogs and "yelling at a group of women." When Mendenhall asked Horan to leave, the brief says, Horan "refused and threatened to call the police." He followed through on that threat after Mendenhall went back inside. When four police officers arrived at the townhouse around 11 p.m., Horan, who lived about 50 miles away, told them he was taking a walk when he stopped to rest on Mendenhall's stoop. Although Horan was carrying a gun, he said he had felt threatened by Mendenhall and wanted to press charges. "Rather than asking follow-up or clarifying questions," Mendenhall's brief says, "the officers went to Mr. Mendenhall's townhouse and arrested him as soon as he opened the door, securing him in handcuffs and taking him to a squad car across the street." The officers called Rocco-McKeel, telling him what Horan had said. Without talking to Mendenhall, the detective regurgitated that account in an affidavit that he submitted to Denver County Court Judge Renee A. Goble, who issued a search warrant at 12:34 a.m. on March 11. Horan never testified before Goble, submitted an affidavit, or otherwise swore to the facts underlying the allegations against Mendenhall. And Rocco-McKeel, who wrote the affidavit, "neither observed any of the relevant facts nor personally spoke to Mr. Horan," the 10th Circuit brief notes. He "merely repeated what another officer said Mr. Horan had said." All of that was fine under the Denver Police Department's operations manual, which says officers may "rely upon information received through an informant, rather than upon direct observation, to show probable cause" for a search warrant. It was also fine under Jones v. United States, a 1960 case in which the Supreme Court approved the search of an apartment based on an unnamed informant's report that the tenant was involved in drug dealing. That decision, the Institute for Justice argues, is inconsistent with the text and history of the Fourth Amendment, which says "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." Until Jones, that requirement generally was understood to mean that warrants could be issued only based on the affiant's firsthand knowledge of the relevant facts, as opposed to the unsworn claims of another person who was never subjected to judicial scrutiny. That understanding, Mendenhall's brief argues, jibes with British and American common law, was reflected in a long series of court decisions, and "continued virtually without question for over 160 years." In Jones, however, the Supreme Court disregarded the Fourth Amendment's Oath or Affirmation Clause, focusing instead on what was required to show probable cause. That decision "addressed neither the constitutional text nor the overwhelming weight of authority," Mendenhall's brief says. "Under a proper interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, Denver's express policy of permitting warrants to be issued without oath or affirmation supporting probable cause is unconstitutional. But for Jones, Denver would be liable to Mr. Mendenhall for its unreasonable search and seizure of his property." In February, U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer predictably concluded that Jones barred Mendenhall's civil rights lawsuit against the city and county of Denver. Mendenhall's lawyers acknowledge that the 10th Circuit likewise is bound by that precedent. Mendenhall "brought this case to overturn Jones and reestablish the vital role that the Oath or Affirmation Clause was intended to play in protecting the rights enshrined in our Constitution," the Institute for Justice says. "He concedes that this Court is bound by Jones and must affirm the district court's decision granting Denver's motion to dismiss. Mr. Mendenhall files this brief, however, both to preserve this issue for further review by the U.S. Supreme Court and in the hopes of persuading the members of this panel that they, too, should call on the Supreme Court to restore the constitutional protection that Jones improperly erased." In a brief supporting Mendenhall's appeal, five law professors argue that "the text and Founding-era understanding of the Fourth Amendment require that a warrant be supported by admissible witness testimony." They add that "cases decided shortly after ratification confirm that hearsay is not a proper basis for issuing a warrant." Two other briefs underline the hazards of hearsay-based warrants. The National Police Accountability Project and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership note that warrants based on secondhand information, typically from confidential sources who have incentives to lie or exaggerate, "routinely result in wrong house raids," which "present significant danger to residents of the home and officers executing the warrant," often resulting in "civilians and police being seriously injured or killed." That danger is starkly illustrated by the March 2020 raid that killed Breonna Taylor. Louisville, Kentucky, police broke into Taylor's apartment late at night based on a search warrant obtained by Detective Joshua Jaynes, who claimed a U.S. postal inspector had informed him that her ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer named Jamarcus Glover, had been receiving packages at her address, which Jaynes suggested might contain drugs or drug money. It turned out that Jaynes never spoke directly with the postal inspector, who said there was nothing suspicious about the packages. But that revelation came too late for Taylor, who died in a hail of bullets after her new boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired at the invading officers, whom he mistook for violent criminals. Walker was initially charged with attempted murder of a police officer, but prosecutors dropped that case two months later, implicitly conceding that he had a strong self-defense claim. "No drugs, money, or contraband were found in Ms. Taylor's apartment during or after the raid," notes a brief that Walker submitted in support of Mendenhall's appeal. "Mr. Glover himself later confirmed that Ms. Taylor had no involvement in his drug trade, explaining that the only packages he ever had sent to her address contained clothes and shoes that we was afraid would be stolen if sent to the house where he stayed." Taylor's senseless death "reflects not only a catastrophic failure of the warrant process, but also a foreseeable consequence of Jones," Walker's brief argues. "By allowing magistrates to issue warrants based on hearsay, Jones removed the requirement that a declarant appear in court, swear to the truth of their statement, and be subjected to questioning, and replaced it with a framework that lends itself to fabrication." Thanks to Jones, "officers seeking a warrant but lacking probable cause—like Detective Jaynes—may now be motivated to enhance their own affidavits by inventing conversations with third-party declarants," the brief notes. "And, because Jones requires no oath or appearance from those declarants, the reviewing judge must rely entirely on the affiant's secondhand account of what a declarant allegedly said and why he/she should be believed. Not only does the magistrate have no opportunity to evaluate the declarant's demeanor, consistency, or basis of knowledge, but also, more fundamentally, the magistrate effectively has no way to verify whether the declarant even exists or ever even made the statements attributed to him/her. The result is a system in which wholly fabricated claims can serve as the basis for intrusions into our most private spaces." That brief was joined by Anjanette Young, another victim of a raid based on secondhand information. On a Thursday evening in February 2019, a dozen Chicago police officers, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, burst into Young's apartment. Young, who was changing out of her work clothes, was caught "completely naked and exposed." She was handcuffed in that state, feeling utterly humiliated, for 10 minutes while the officers vainly searched her apartment for an armed felon. "It quickly became apparent that the information they had received from the informant was bad," the brief says. "They were at the wrong apartment." Young "should never have had to endure the invasive and degrading raid that was conducted on her home," the brief adds. "When presented with a warrant application that relied entirely on an unverified tip from an informant, the magistrate judge who issued the warrant had a constitutional obligation to probe the basis for the officer affiant's assertions—e.g., by asking whether the informant's claims were corroborated and what, if anything, law enforcement had done to verify them. While it is unclear whether the magistrate ever spoke with the informant, the fact that he issued the warrant at all—given the apparent lack of any attempt by officers to verify the informant's tip—is highly suggestive of a lack of any meaningful consideration." Jones encourages such lax oversight, the brief argues: "The magistrate judge is no longer able to meaningfully perform [his] constitutional role. Denied access to the declarant, the judge cannot assess his/her credibility firsthand. Instead, the affiant alone decides which facts to include and which to withhold, effectively filtering the evidence and shielding the judge from any information that might undermine the affiant's narrative….The Fourth Amendment demands more than this system of magisterial rubber-stamping that Jones has engendered." The post Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information appeared first on
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No, that isn't Wyatt Russell at the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles
Wyatt Russell, son of Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, has been misidentified in a viral clip of a man scolding authorities during the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. A rep for the Thunderbolts* actor confirmed the misidentification to Entertainment Weekly, noting that the team has been working to correct the misinformation. The viral clip in question features an impassioned man informing armed authorities that they're "on the wrong side of history." "Your assault rifles and your sticks? You should be standing here with us," he said. "We know you got a job to do, but you took an oath to the Constitution, not to the fascists in the White House. Think about what you're doing now. Think about what this means." He added, "Coming into our community, peaceful f---ing community — people working their jobs. They're sending men in military fatigues, weapons of war. And you stand here and you allow it . . . do you think any of these people in the White House sending you these commands give a f--- about you?" He implored the armed officials to "think about your place in history." Protests in the sanctuary city began on Friday and spilled through Sunday after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out raids in heavily Latino parts of the city, including a clothing warehouse in downtown L.A. The protests escalated following Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard, a tactic that both California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have denounced as unwarranted escalation. Newsom, who accused Trump of "inflaming tensions" in a "serious breach of state sovereignty," said he intends to sue the administration on Monday. Among the celebrities who attended the protests were Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day and Finneas O'Connell, the latter of whom had shared that he was tear-gassed "almost immediately at the very peaceful protest." The Grammy-winning musician and older brother of Billie Eilish accused authorities of "inciting" the chaos. Stars like Mark Ruffalo, Chrissy Teigen, Eva Longoria, and Tyler, the Creator also took to social media over the weekend to condemn the raids. Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly
