Former Trump lawyer loses law license in New York
A lawyer who was part of a plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election and keep Donald Trump in power has lost his license to practice in New York.
A New York appeals court determined Thursday that Kenneth Chesebro should be disbarred because of his 2023 conviction in Georgia for his role in the effort to subvert the election.
Chesebro has admitted to helping craft a bid to send fraudulent pro-Trump electors from six states to Congress in hopes of flipping the outcome of the election.
Chesebro's conduct, the panel wrote in its decision, 'strike[s] at the heart of the administration of justice,' and undercuts the very notion of our constitutional democracy that he, as an attorney, swore an oath to uphold.'
Chesebro had his law license suspended by the appeals court in October 2024. He was admitted to the state bar in 2007. Chesebro, who assisted former Vice President Al Gore's legal team amid the legal fallout of the 2000 presidential election, wrote several memos giving rise to the fake elector plot in the months after Trump's November 2020 loss.
Alongside his Georgia guilty plea, Chesebro also cooperated with prosecutors in Arizona and Georgia and is currently charged in connection with the fraudulent elector plot in Wisconsin.
'Moreover, his cavalier attitude regarding his actions, particularly in the face of his extensive background in the areas of constitutional and election law, largely aggravates his conduct,' the panel said.
An attorney representing Chesebro did not immediately respond to a request for comment from POLITICO.
Several lawyers who assisted in Trump's bid to overturn the 2020 election have faced consequences for their efforts. Chief among them is attorney John Eastman, who lost his law license in California in 2024.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
5 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at END PREP The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though none sent their children to public schools. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also expressed surprise that the school system was 'not respecting religious liberty,' especially because of the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics. Pressed repeatedly about why the school system couldn't reinstitute an opt-out policy, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said, 'It tried that. It failed. It was not able to accommodate the number of opt-outs at issue.' Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, Schoenfeld said. Justices referred to several of the books, but none as extensively as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in which a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who are on opposite sides of most culture-war clashes, offered competing interpretations. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor said, noting there's not even any kissing involved. Alito described the book as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he said. In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote. In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. 'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
Washington Post
5 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court upholds $8 billion fund for internet and phone service
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled an $8 billion fund that provides telephone and internet service in rural and low-income communities is constitutional, a break from a string of major rulings by the high court that have sharply curtailed the power of federal agencies. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices found Congress properly granted the Federal Communications Commission discretion to collect fees from telecommunications companies to pay for the Universal Service Fund, which helps ensure equal access to critical communication services. It was one of six decisions expected Friday, the final day of the Supreme Court term. The ruling is a blow to conservatives who had hoped the high court would — for the first time since 1935 — find that Congress had violated a constitutional provision that bars it from delegating too much of its legislative authority to other branches of the government, namely the executive and federal agencies. Conservatives have long sought to revive the 'nondelegation doctrine' as a means to check a federal bureaucracy they feel has grown too large and powerful. A decision striking down the fund could have opened the door to a host of legal challenges against other powers Congress has granted to agencies. The decision comes almost exactly a year after the high court dramatically reshaped the regulatory landscape, striking down a 40-year-old precedent that held judges must grant broad leeway to agency's interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as those interpretations are reasonable. The Chevron doctrine formed the basis of thousands of regulations dealing with drugs, workplace safety and the environment. The conservative supermajority on the court has steadily rolled back regulation in recent terms, curbing the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse gases, runoff in wetlands and air pollution that drifts across state lines. The justices also struck down in-house tribunals at the Securities and Exchange Commission that target securities fraud. The Universal Service Fund was created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act to provide phone and web connections to remote communities, rural hospitals, libraries and schools, and those who couldn't otherwise afford it. Telecom companies tack fees onto customers' bills to make payments to the fund. Critics contend the fund collects too much money and is inefficient and wasteful. Consumers Research, a conservative group, challenged the Universal Service Fund, along with consumers and a carrier. The petitioners argued Congress did not have the authority to give the FCC what is essentially the power to levy a tax. They said the nondelegation issue was compounded because the FCC had created a non-profit company to administer the fund. The company remains under the oversight and control of the FCC and has no independent regulatory authority. 'In essence, a private company is taxing Americans in amounts that total billions of dollars every year, under penalty of law, without true governmental accountability," the groups wrote in their filing with the high court. A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled against the groups, before the full appeals court reversed that decision. The full court held the combination of Congress giving the FCC 'sweeping' powers and the FCC, in turn, granting some of that authority to a private company insulated the fund from accountability to voters. The Biden administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court last year, and the Trump administration has continued to defend the government's position. The courts have long given Congress broad leeway to delegate quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative tasks to federal agencies if Congress articulates an 'intelligible principle' to constrain the use of the delegation. In a filing last year on the United Fund case, then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that standard was more than satisfied, citing rules Congress had enacted that dictate the fund's operation. 'The Act, in short, provides comprehensive guidance to the FCC on how to implement Congress's universal service policy,' Prelogar wrote. This is a developing story. It will be updated.
Politico
6 minutes ago
- Politico
30 days and then what on birthright citizenship?
The Supreme Court has preserved the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to cover preventive health services like colonoscopies and HIV prevention drugs at no cost to patients. It's the fourth time in the past 13 years that the high court has rejected major challenges to the 2010 health law. This time around, the vote was 6-3, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion for a cross-ideological majority. Three of the court's conservatives dissented. The case centered on a panel of experts known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Affordable Care Act authorized the task force to specify health screenings and other preventive services that insurers must cover without charging patients copayments, deductibles or other cost-sharing. Tens of millions of Americans rely on those services, including cancer screenings, heart disease medications and the drug, known as PrEP, that prevents the transmission of HIV. Opponents of the ACA who object to the HIV drug argued that the task force — which is chosen by the secretary of Health and Human Services — was unconstitutionally appointed. The task force members, the opponents argued, wield so much power that they amount to 'principal officers' under the Constitution's appointments clause and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the members are not principal officers because the health secretary can ignore their recommendations, fire them and replace them. 'Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the Secretary of HHS's supervision and direction, and the Secretary remains subject to the President's supervision and direction,' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers' design of the Appointments Clause.' Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The Trump administration surprised many when it revealed earlier this year that it would continue the Biden administration's defense of the Obamacare provision. But it shifted the focus of the federal government's legal argument. The Biden Justice Department had argued in lower courts that free preventive care was crucial for the health of millions of American patients. The Trump DOJ, on the other hand, focused during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April on preserving executive power and fending off judicial and legislative encroachments. Health policy experts and patient advocates who expressed relief that the Trump administration opted to defend Obamacare remain concerned that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials will now deploy that power to reshape what services must be covered by insurance without copays. 'They really pointed out how much authority they think their Secretary wields, which is kind of foreboding given who the Secretary is and his ideas about science and health,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, the director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Somebody could be fairly concerned that there could be weaponization of the task force.' And, while this case focused solely on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the decision could also empower Kennedy to overhaul other advisory panels at HHS.
