Attention to the Unseen

Joseph Nunn writes: The Insurrection Act is a nuclear bomb hidden in the United States Code. Enacted in the early years of this country’s existence, it was subsequently modified several times, as Congress greatly expanded the President’s powers under the law during the bloody tumult of the Civil War and Reconstruction. It has largely been ignored ever since. But today, the law has garnered renewed attention and raised concerns in many quarters for a reason that should echo ominously this…

Read More Read More

Don Moynihan writes: [Trump’s] impeachment for fomenting an insurrection was derailed by Mitch McConnell and other Republican Senators who insisted that the legal system would hold him accountable: “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.” Almost four years on, the legal system has failed to hold Trump accountable, and will not before he would gain authority to pardon himself. The only…

Read More Read More

The New York Times reports: The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday about executive immunity makes it all but certain that former President Donald J. Trump will not stand trial on charges of seeking to overturn the last election before voters decide whether to send him back to the White House in the next one. But the ruling also opened the door for prosecutors to detail much of their evidence against Mr. Trump in front of a federal judge — and…

Read More Read More

Mark Joseph Stern writes: The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority fundamentally altered American democracy on Monday, awarding the president a sweeping and novel immunity when he weaponizes the power of his office for corrupt, violent, or treasonous purposes. This near-insurmountable shield against prosecution for crimes committed while in office upends the structure of the federal government, elevating the presidency to a king-like status high above the other branches. The immediate impact of the court’s sweeping decision will be devastating enough, allowing…

Read More Read More

Politico reports: Donald Trump may never see the inside of a criminal courtroom again. The Supreme Court’s sweeping ruling that Trump — and all presidents — are immune from prosecution for their “official” actions immediately gutted some of the central allegations that special counsel Jack Smith leveled against Trump a year ago, when he charged the former president with conspiring to subvert the 2020 election. And it may eventually sink the rest of them, too. Constitutional experts digesting the breathtaking…

Read More Read More

Axios reports: House Democrats are previewing plans for a forceful legislative and investigative push against the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents have legal immunity for “official acts.” Why it matters: It is part of House Democrats’ effort to frame themselves in the 2024 election as a potential bulwark against unified conservative control of a federal government led by former President Trump. “Everyone is making that argument with donors” after President Biden’s poor debate performance last week, one House Democrat told Axios. “The only thing more…

Read More Read More

NPR reports: In a momentous decision that will affect vast swaths of American life, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday undid decades of regulatory law, making it far more difficult for federal agencies to issue rules and regulations that carry out broad mandates enacted by Congress. The vote, along ideological lines, was 6-to-3. Writing for the court’s conservative supermajority, Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly overturned a 40-year-old precedent that had instructed lower court judges to defer to reasonable agency interpretations…

Read More Read More

Ian Millhiser writes: On Thursday, the Court handed down a 6-3 decision, on a party-line vote, that could render a simply astonishing array of federal laws unenforceable. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in dissent, “the constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress.” The dispute in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy turns on whether a hedge fund manager accused of defrauding…

Read More Read More

Ian Millhiser writes: On a 6-3 party-line vote, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that state officials may accept “gratuities” from people who wish to reward them for their official actions, despite a federal anti-corruption statute that appears to ban such rewards. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in Snyder v. United States for the Court’s Republican-appointed majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent on behalf of the Court’s three Democratic appointees. Snyder turns on a distinction between “bribes” and “gratuities.” As…

Read More Read More

The New Republic reports: In a ruling delivered Friday, the Supreme Court decided 6–3 that U.S. citizens have no constitutional interest in their noncitizen spouses being able to enter the United States—despite the fact that a married person has an inherent interest in their spouse being able to live in the same country as they do. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the ruling is an obvious sign the court will seek to overturn protections for marriage equality next. Sotomayor…

Read More Read More

Mark Joseph Stern writes: The Supreme Court upheld a federal law disarming domestic abusers on Friday, significantly narrowing a radical 2022 precedent in the process. Its 8–1 ruling in U.S. v. Rahimi is a major victory for gun safety laws, a much-needed reprieve after two years of unceasing hostility from the federal judiciary. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion walked back maximalist rhetoric—recklessly injected into the law by Justice Clarence Thomas—that had imperiled virtually every modern regulation limiting access to firearms. Thomas…

Read More Read More