Latest news with #MuellerReport
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Doesn't Have 5 Votes To Uphold Birthright Citizenship: Ex-AG
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Former U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales during an interview on Sunday speculated that the Supreme Court ruled against nationwide injunctions in a landmark case as a compromise after failing to secure five votes on the issue of birthright citizenship. Gonzales, who served in former President George W. Bush's administration, admitted that he had no basis for his speculation, but found it interesting that the court declined to rule ono the "substantive issue" of birthright citizenship put before the justices. Why It Matters President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February to end birthright citizenship, which is granted under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and explicitly grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Trump has argued that the amendment as been misinterpreted and that the federal government has the authority to restrict birthright citizenship through executive action. However, the case of Trump v. CASA focused on whether judges have the authority to issue the nationwide, or universal, injunctions that blocked Trump's order from implementation. The administration has complained that federal judges have overreached by issuing orders that apply to all parties instead of only the aggrieved parties. What To Know The Supreme Court on Friday issued an opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barret that severely limited the scope and qualification for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions and sidestepped making any ruling on the issue on the issue of birthright citizenship itself, instead pushing that decision back to October when the next session for the court commences. Gonzalez, speaking with CNN's Fareed Zakaria at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on Sunday, speculated that the landmark ruling occurred as a compromise after the judges failed to come to any consensus over the substantive issue of birthright citizenship itself. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts (L), along with Associate Justices (L-R) Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson (back) stand in the House of Representatives ahead of... Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts (L), along with Associate Justices (L-R) Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson (back) stand in the House of Representatives ahead of US President Joe Biden's third State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2024. INSET: Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales speaks about Attorney General William Barr and the Mueller Report during the American Bar Association's (ABA) Young Lawyers Division 2019 Spring Conference, on May 3, 2019 in Washington, DC. More Shawn Thew/POOL/AFP via Getty Images //"It is possible that the court took this case to decide the substantive issue," Gonzales said. "As they negotiate what the opinion should read, they discover they don't have five votes either way, and so as a result of that, they decide to punt the substantive issue and deal only with it with a nationwide injunction." When asked if that meant he believed the court was deadlocked on the issue of birthright citizenship, Gonzales said, "It's pretty obvious. Well, it seems obvious to me." "It seems pretty obvious to me, and I think that there are at least five votes to affirm that, and perhaps the only way to get this opinion out was to carve away the substantive issue and deal only with this issue," he said, referring to nationwide injunctions. Former U.S. attorney general Sally Yates, who served during former President Barack Obama's administration, chimed in to say that "if we don't have five votes on this [issue], we're all in really big trouble." This would mean that the court has at least one justice who is unable to commit to either upholding or rejecting birthright citizenship, leaving the other justices unable to secure a majority opinion and rule on the issue. As many as four justices could have otherwise sided with either position on the issue. The idea that the justices make compromises on cases in order to advance certain positions is one that has been widely discussed, even as the justices try to dissuade any suggestion of dealmaking. In the book Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences, CNN's Chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic discussed how the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy had worked together to advance cases that created offsetting opinions on the issue of gay rights. Roberts joined Kennedy in saying that a gay couple in Arkansas could not be prevented from being named on their baby's birth certificate (the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges), while Kennedy would support bringing a case about a cake store refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple before the court. Biskupic wrote, in part: "In many instances, law clerks know about a deal struck between justices. But in others, only the two justices involved truly know. Sometimes various chambers have dueling accounts of what happened, or individual justices remain baffled about why a colleague voted the way he or she did in the end." In a rare insight into the chief justice's thinking, Roberts spoke over the weekend at a judicial conference in conversation with the chief justice of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals following the ruling in Trump v. CASA, specifically about criticism the justices face after publishing and announcing their rulings. "It would be good if people appreciated it's not the judges' fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don't get to do this," Roberts said, adding, "You'd like it to be informed criticism, but it's usually not. They're naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that's just the nature of what you do." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social, in part: "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ." Professor Samuel Bray, in a previous statement sent to Newsweek: "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal. I do not expect the President's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect. Today's decision is a vindication and reassertion of the proper role of the federal courts in our constitutional system." John Eastman of the Claremont Institute in a previous statement to Newsweek: "I am troubled by the outright falsehoods in the dissenting opinions regarding the claim that Trump's EO is 'patently unconstitutional' and a violation of long-settled law. My brief in the case points out a number of those falsities. And I'm sure we'll have more opportunity to do so as the case now progresses on the merits." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to revisit the case of birthright citizenship in October when the next session of the court commences.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Trump administration has a high bar in trying to remove the Perkins Coie judge
The Justice Department wants to remove U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell from the Perkins Coie case, after the Obama-appointed judge curbed President Donald Trump's order targeting the law firm. But as I explained during U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's handling of Trump's classified documents case, it's a high bar to remove a judge — so the Trump administration shouldn't bank on getting rid of Howell. Recall that the DOJ under then-special counsel Jack Smith didn't take the step that the DOJ under Trump is taking against Howell. When Smith appealed Cannon's decision to dismiss Trump's documents case, outside groups supporting Smith called for her ouster; but the appeals court didn't rule before Trump won the 2024 election, after which Smith moved to dismiss the case based on DOJ policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. But with the DOJ making a motion for Howell's disqualification, we should get a court ruling on the subject. And what is the Justice Department arguing? From its motion filed Friday, here's a summary of the government's position why, in its words, the judge 'has repeatedly demonstrated partiality against and animus towards the President' in several past cases in addition to the present one: Examples include this Court enabling the improper efforts of disgraced former prosecutor Jack Smith despite a readily apparent lack of venue in this District; wrongly suggesting in public that President Trump is an authoritarian; and incorrectly finding that President Trump — the most well-known man on Earth — presents a flight risk where even the prior Administration's Department of Justice had to retract such a suggestion. This Court's comments at the hearing on the meritless motion for a temporary restraining order ('TRO') in this case, including gratuitous and biased references by this Court regarding the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller ('Mueller Report'), confirm that reasonable observers may view this Court as incapable of fairly adjudicating these claims against the Commander-In-Chief. At the outset, there's an important distinction to draw between a judge's rulings and other things such as their outside comments, relationships and the like. That's because, according to a Supreme Court precedent that the DOJ cites in its disqualification motion, rulings alone 'almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.' To be sure, the DOJ doesn't only cite Howell's rulings. DOJ lawyers pointed to a 2023 speech she gave at a conference in which, they wrote, she 'lamented that America is at a 'crossroads' and, in an apparent reference to President Trump, indicated that one path would lead to authoritarianism.' They also cited her remark at a hearing in the Perkins Coie case about Trump having 'a bee in his bonnet.' When it comes to judicial statements, a party has an even more difficult task when the statements come from the judge's participation in the relevant legal proceedings, as opposed to from what's known as an 'extrajudicial' source. That subject came up when Trump tried to remove U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan from his other federal criminal case, and she rejected his motion, citing that distinction. While there are distinctions between the situations, it would be surprising if Howell rules differently than Chutkan did when she decides on the motion. Given the high bar for disqualification, if she does in fact deny it, then the Trump DOJ could have a tough time if it presses the matter on appeal. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
The Guardian
09-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Stand up for what's right': Melville House co-founder on publishing Jack Smith and Tulsa reports
A US publishing house has decided to publish official reports into sensitive matters in US politics and history against the backdrop of a new Donald Trump administration committed to a radical rightwing agenda of reshaping American government and fiercely aggressive against its opponents, especially in the media. The publisher, Melville House, will on Tuesday release The Jack Smith Report, a print and ebook edition of the special counsel's summation of his investigation of Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Later in February, the company will then publish another report the Department of Justice issued shortly before Trump returned to power, concerning the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921. Dennis Johnson, co-founder of Melville House with his wife, Valerie Merians, said The Jack Smith Report would be published with no frills: 'It is just a report, and we're just reprinting it. We're not doing anything to it. We're not adding anything in the front or back. We're not getting star introductions or anything. We just wanted it to speak for itself.' But he also described an urgent need to put out physical copies, in light of Trump's push to revenge himself on prosecutors who worked for Smith and FBI agents who investigated the January 6 attack on Congress. Johnson said the same for the Tulsa report, amid a drive to stamp out diversity, equity and inclusion policies which has resulted in the disappearances of official online resources related to the history of racism and civil rights. Johnson has published federal reports before, achieving notable sales for the CIA Torture Report (2014) and the Mueller Report (2019), the latter concerning Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow. Melville House has always been 'mission-driven', Johnson said, describing a company 'founded as a minor but sincere attempt to stand up to the [election] of George Bush'. Nonetheless, after Trump's victory over Kamala Harris in November, Johnson and his staff found themselves 'just stumped. We had no ideas … we just felt totally defeated … and then there was this murmuring about the Jack Smith report coming. And when we heard that, after two or three months of being in a bunk and a daze, we just immediately thought we should do that.' Smith was appointed in November 2022, under the Biden administration. He investigated 'whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election', as well as Trump's retention of classified documents after leaving power. Ultimately, Smith filed four criminal charges relating to election subversion and 40 concerning retention of classified records. Trump pleaded not guilty but his lawyers and a compliant Florida judge secured delays, meaning neither case reached trial before November. After Trump's election win, Smith closed his cases. Before Trump returned to power, the Department of Justice released part one of Smith's report, covering his work on Trump's election subversion. Part two, on Trump's retention of classified information, remains under wraps. Melville House has moved fast. Johnson said such 'crash publishing' required hard work and help from printers, retailers and more. But the Jack Smith Report, he said, would 'launch into a very different book culture than the last time we were in this predicament, in 2016. People are very afraid. 'We did the Mueller Report and there were two other significant publications. There was Simon and Schuster, they're one of the biggest publishers in the world, and there was Skyhorse, which is independent but much bigger than us … and yet we got our book on the bestseller list. 'We knew that wasn't going to happen this time, because the big houses, we're guessing, are intimidated – don't want any hard feelings with the White House. Trump has already informed Penguin he's going to sue them about a critical biography they published last year [Lucky Loser, by Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner.] And the publisher with Skyhorse [Tony Lyons] actually worked on the presidential campaign of Robert F Kennedy Jr [now Trump's nominee for health secretary] so we knew he wasn't going to put [the Smith report] out. So we'd have the field to ourselves, which is good.' Sign up to First Thing Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'I think there's a world of independent booksellers who are eager to be supporting something that speaks to the moment, that somehow stands up for what's right.' It took the Department of Justice more than 100 years to stand up a proper investigation of the Tulsa Race Massacre – one of the most unjustly obscure episodes in US history, in which hundreds were killed when Greenwood, Oklahoma, a prosperous Black neighborhood, was destroyed by a white mob. No charges were brought. Under Joe Biden, a new investigation was carried out by a cold case unit of the justice department civil rights division named for Emmett Till, a Black teen murdered by white men in Mississippi in 1955. The Tulsa report was released on 10 January. Ten days later, Trump returned to power – and announced sweeping changes at the civil rights division. Calling the new Tulsa report 'nauseating and gripping', Johnson said: 'We went to the Library of Congress and found a lot of the photos which might have been part of the initial report when the massacre happened, that the predecessor of the FBI did, the investigation this report criticizes. They supplement the information but it only takes a few pictures to make the point. They're just aerial shots of devastation. It's like Munich in world war two. Hiroshima. Total devastation.' Johnson hopes his editions of the Jack Smith and Tulsa reports will find places in 'libraries and classrooms' as well as homes. When he was a boy, he said, adults he knew 'had the Pentagon Papers paperback in their home, they might have had the Warren Commission and later the Starr Report. I want people to feel these reports are part of the American historic record.' The Jack Smith Report is published in the US on Tuesday
