Daily Caller reported that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) is dissolving following a series of lawsuits from social media companies accusing it of censoring conservative content.
The lawsuits, filed by platforms like X and Rumble, allege that GARM colluded with advertisers to withhold monetization from certain platforms and content creators.
GARM, an advertising coalition established by the World Federation of Advertisers, announced on Thursday that it would be discontinuing its operations. This decision follows intense legal battles with social media giants X and Rumble.
X and Rumble accused GARM of orchestrating a scheme with advertisers to stifle conservative voices and limit monetization options for platforms they identified as "disfavored." These allegations were a major factor driving the decision to disband GARM.
The lawsuits claim that GARM’s actions amounted to collusion. In a report released by the House Judiciary Committee in July, GARM was described as having directly organized boycotts and utilized indirect tactics against platforms, content creators, and news organizations deemed unsuitable for advertisers.
GARM’s guidelines, which labeled sensitive social issues and hate speech as inappropriate for advertising, were at the center of these allegations. Platforms like The Daily Wire were blacklisted under categories such as "conspiracy theories." Moreover, GARM reportedly pressured Spotify and The Joe Rogan Experience over content related to COVID-19 vaccines, alleging misinformation.
The World Federation of Advertisers notified its employees about the decision to dissolve GARM, describing it as a difficult but necessary action. In a statement issued on Friday, GARM expressed that the allegations against it had misconstrued its purpose and significantly drained its resources and finances.
“GARM is a small, not-for-profit initiative, and recent allegations that underestimate its purpose and activities have caused a distraction and significantly drained its resources and finances," GARM stated. "Therefore, GARM is making the difficult decision to discontinue its activities."
The lawsuit filed by X in Texas claimed that GARM members collectively withheld billions of dollars in advertising revenue from the platform. X CEO Linda Yaccarino emphasized the platform’s efforts to provide a safe and efficient advertising environment, criticizing the practices that led to the legal disputes. Linda Yaccarino commented:
We have proven our platform provides advertisers a way to showcase their brands and reach their target audiences safely, efficiently and effectively. The unfortunate reality is that despite all our efforts, hundreds of meetings and research to the contrary, many companies chose to dismiss the facts. To those who broke the law, we say enough is enough.
Rumble’s lawsuit echoed similar sentiments, contending that GARM used arbitrary content standards to drive an advertiser boycott against the platform. “The brand safety standards set by advertisers and their ad agencies should succeed or fail in the marketplace on their own merits and not through the coercive exercise of market power,” the lawsuit stated.
Rumble further alleged that GARM’s actions were detrimental, not just to platforms and content creators, but also to its own advertiser clients, who paid higher rates for ads because of the collusion. The lawsuit emphasized that this illegal activity came at the expense of multiple stakeholders.
GARM members faced backlash internally as well. A member reportedly expressed disdain for conservative news outlets, referring to their ideologies as “bullshit.” The member observed these outlets closely to catch them crossing the lines set by GARM's standards, further fueling the legal contentions.
In summary, GARM’s dissolution marks a significant turn in the ongoing battle over content censorship and advertising standards. The lawsuits from X and Rumble that drove this decision highlight the complexities and challenges faced in navigating the intersection of digital media, free speech, and responsible ad placement.
Variety reported that Oliver Darcy, the well-regarded author of CNN's "Reliable Sources" newsletter, has departed the network to forge his own path.
His departure signifies a pivotal moment in media industry coverage as he embarks on a new project called "Status."
Darcy launched "Status" on Thursday morning, utilizing the Beehiv platform to distribute his new newsletter. "Status" will be produced from Sunday to Thursday, providing a solid and unfiltered analysis of the media landscape, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley.
In explaining his motivation, Oliver Darcy expressed a desire to create a scalable business centered around his media reporting talents. This move follows a growing trend among high-profile journalists, such as Don Lemon, Medhi Hasan, and Tucker Carlson, who have likewise transitioned from television to digital initiatives.
Unlike some departures marked by conflict, Darcy's exit from CNN seems amicable. Both the network and Darcy have independently confirmed his departure.
CNN's CEO, Mark Thompson, commended Darcy’s contributions, describing him as a prominent and fair-minded voice in media reporting. Thompson extended his best wishes for Darcy’s future endeavors.
As Darcy steps away, CNN’s "Reliable Sources" newsletter will be pausing for the remainder of the summer. However, the network plans to relaunch it in the fall with a new lead writer.
CNN continues to maintain a robust team dedicated to media coverage, which includes Hadas Gold, Jon Passantino, and Liam Reilly. This ensures that CNN’s commitment to scrutinizing the media industry remains strong.
"Reliable Sources" has a storied history at CNN, having aired as a prominent program for 30 years that closely examined media operations, particularly in Washington. The program’s previous leader, Brian Stelter, was let go in 2022 after the show was canceled, partially due to concerns of perceived bias during Jeff Zucker’s tenure as CNN’s president.
Darcy's final "Reliable Sources" newsletter was released on Wednesday evening, notably without any mention of his departure. This issue's leading story focused on a significant fiscal write-down of $9.1 billion at CNN's parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, highlighting a tough day for its CEO, David Zaslav.
In announcing "Status," Darcy articulated his mission to deliver direct and unsparing reporting on influential industry players. He asserted that there would be no concessions made for sensitive egos, aiming always to present the blunt truth.
Oliver Darcy's move away from CNN to "Status" represents a key development in media industry coverage. With "Status," he intends to maintain a rigorous and candid approach to his reporting across media, automotive, and tech sectors.
While CNN adjusts its "Reliable Sources" newsletter with a new helmsman to be appointed in the fall, the network’s commitment to providing critical media coverage remains steadfast. The legacy of "Reliable Sources," spanning three decades of influential content, continues to hold an important place in CNN’s offerings.
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón has charged veteran actor Gabriel Olds with multiple counts of sexual assault against three women.
According to ABC News, Olds, known for roles on TV shows like "Criminal Minds" and "NCIS: Los Angeles," could face a life sentence if convicted.
The charges against Olds involve three counts of forcible rape, one count of rape of an unconscious or asleep person, one count of sodomy by use of force, one count of assault with intent to commit a felony, and one count of injuring a cohabitant. These counts stem from alleged violent assaults reported by women who initially met him through dating encounters.
Actor Gabriel Olds was arrested and booked on seven felony sexual assault charges on Wednesday, with bail set at $3.5 million. Authorities claim that since 2013, Olds has used his Yale University background and Ivy League status to meet women, often through dating applications, leading to allegedly violent assaults.
In January 2023, a 41-year-old woman reported to the LAPD that Olds had raped her in her Los Angeles home. Following this initial allegation, two other women stepped forward, recounting similar experiences that dated back to as early as 2013. These victims indicated consensual dating scenarios that turned into brutal assaults.
George Gascón, Los Angeles County District Attorney, expressed profound concern over these accusations. "The pain and suffering these victims have endured is beyond words and no one should ever experience such a betrayal of trust. Consent is never optional," he affirmed.
Detective Brent Hopkins of the Los Angeles Police Department shared insights from the investigation. "We heard the same story again and again. Mr. Olds started off charming, but then used brutal violence to carry out these rapes," Hopkins stated. He also highlighted the silent suffering of many survivors who only now found the courage to speak out.
LAPD investigations revealed multiple women affected by Olds' actions. Three women have come forth with accusations of assault, and two others reported incidents of lesser violent sexual conduct. The police speculate there could be additional victims nationwide due to Olds’ extensive travels.
The allegations brought to light not only portray horrific abuses but also underscore the significant breach of trust. "The actor's actions were utterly inexcusable and a grave violation of these women’s rights," Gascón emphasized.
Olds, a Yale University graduate, has been an actor and screenwriter since the early 1990s. His work includes guest roles on prominent TV shows such as Heroes and Boardwalk Empire. However, these accusations overshadow his career, casting a grim shadow on his public persona.
Olds is slated for arraignment on August 8, at which point the Los Angeles County judicial system will begin its formal procedures against him. Currently, attempts to locate Olds’ legal representative have been unsuccessful.
"We are steadfast in our commitment to prosecute this case and ensure that the offender is held fully accountable," said Gascón, affirming the DA's office's resolve. While the investigation continues, the LAPD urges any potential victims or individuals with information to come forward. This appeal aims to ensure that justice reaches all those affected.
In summary, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón has charged actor Gabriel Olds with multiple counts of sexual assault, including rape, against three women between 2013 and 2023. The charges outlining severe crimes highlight the importance of consent and the tragic impact of its violation.
A Pakistani national, Asif Raza Merchant, has been charged with plotting a murder-for-hire scheme targeting former President Donald Trump and other politicians despite being on a government watch list.
According to Breitbart News, Merchant gained entry to the United States under "significant public benefit parole" and traveled freely within the country before his arrest in July.
Merchant, age 46, was arrested on charges brought by the Department of Justice for allegedly orchestrating a plot to murder former President Donald Trump and other political figures.
Authorities noted that Merchant had been flagged as a "Lookout Qualified Person of Interest" in the Department of Homeland Security’s database, yet he was granted entry into the U.S.
Merchant landed at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas, on April 13, where federal agents interviewed, fingerprinted and inspected him.
During the inspection, agents observed that Merchant had recently traveled to Iran, a location frequently associated with Islamic terrorism activities.
The Department of Homeland Security’s database marked Merchant in bright red as a person of interest who should be monitored closely.
In spite of the warnings in the DHS database, officials permitted Merchant to enter the U.S. under "significant public benefit parole," which was initially set to expire on May 11. Merchant remained in the United States even after his parole period ended, moving freely and ostensibly preparing for his plot.
Speculation suggests that federal agents may have allowed Merchant into the country hoping he would aid in investigations and help apprehend other suspects.
While in the U.S., Merchant's travel included flights from Houston to New York City, New York City to Boston, and back to New York City between April and June. Merchant's arrest on July 12 occurred just as he was reportedly attempting to leave the U.S. for Pakistan, presumably to oversee the assassination plan.
According to prosecutors, Merchant was believed to be coordinating the assassination efforts with individuals he thought were recruited to conduct the attacks, which he intended to direct from abroad. Reports suggest that the federal agents allowed Merchant to enter the country under parole to potentially turn him against other conspirators.
Asif Raza Merchant, a Pakistani national, faced charges for a murder-for-hire plot targeting former President Donald Trump and other political figures. Even though his immigration records highlighted him as a "Lookout Qualified Person of Interest," he was allowed into the United States under "significant public benefit parole." This followed an inspection at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, even though he had recently traveled to Iran.
Merchant traveled freely inside the U.S., flying between Houston, New York City, and Boston, before his arrest on July 12 as he allegedly intended to depart for Pakistan to further orchestrate the plot. It is speculated that federal agents aimed to use him to bring other suspects into custody.
Former President Donald Trump made headlines Thursday afternoon with his pointed criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris's nomination for the Democratic presidential ticket.
According to Breitbart News, Trump questioned the legitimacy of Harris's nomination, highlighting her lackluster performance in the primaries.
During a press conference at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, Trump attacked Harris’s ascent to the Democratic presidential nominee. A reporter prompted Trump to elaborate on his comments on Truth Social regarding the constitutionality of Harris's nomination.
Trump expressed his astonishment that someone who received little voter support during the primaries could be selected to run for president. He claimed that Harris was the first to drop out of the Democratic primary race, describing her as the "first loser" in the process.
"She has no votes. And I’m very happy to run against her, I’m not complaining from that standpoint," Trump said. He characterized Harris's debate performances as subpar and criticized her political acumen.
Trump continued, "She had no votes, no support, and she was a bad debater, by the way. Very bad debater."
In his remarks, Trump suggested that Harris's nomination might be unconstitutional, although he acknowledged uncertainty on the matter. "But the fact that you can be, get no votes, lose in the primary system... and that you can then be picked to run for president? It seems, to me, actually unconstitutional. Perhaps it’s not," he stated.
Trump expressed that the Constitution is a critical document that must be upheld: "We have a Constitution. It’s a very important document. And we live by it."
The former president did not mince words about her selection to be Joe Biden's running mate, implying it was a choice that Biden regretted. "Then, for some reason, and I know he regrets it — you do, too — he picked her, and she turned on him, too," Trump remarked.
Trump also took the opportunity to contrast Harris with President Biden, suggesting she was “worse than Biden” but “not as smart.” He seemed eager to position himself as a superior alternative to the current president and his newly minted opponent.
"And I hate to be defending [Biden], but he did not want to leave. He wanted to see if he could win," Trump pointed out, suggesting there was internal Democratic maneuvering at play.
Vice President Harris has not held a press conference or engaged in an interview for 18 days following her nomination. This hiatus has added fuel to Trump's critiques about her suitability for the presidency.
Trump's criticism of Kamala Harris's nomination centers on her perceived lack of support during the primaries, her debate performance, and questions about the constitutional implications of her selection. These themes are likely to remain focal points in the discussions leading up to the election.
The Utah Supreme Court is set to hear a significant case regarding the contested GOP primary election results.
According to the Washington Examiner, the court will evaluate Colby Jenkins’s concerns about 1,171 mail-in ballots that were not counted in his race against Rep. Celeste Maloy.
On June 25, the Republican primary election between Colby Jenkins and Celeste Maloy was extremely close, ultimately leading to a recount. The recount revealed that Maloy had a narrow lead over Jenkins, with a difference of only 176 votes.
However, Jenkins raised concerns about 1,171 mail-in ballots that were not counted because they missed the postmark deadline. Jenkins asserts that not including these ballots is a violation of the state's constitution, specifically pointing to Article I, Section 17.
Colby Jenkins's legal team has been actively pursuing various avenues to ensure the contested ballots are counted. Prior to this, Jenkins's campaign requested a federal judge to count these ballots, but the judge denied the request.
The lieutenant governor’s office, which oversees election procedures, has weighed in on the matter. In a brief filed on Wednesday, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson's office emphasized that state law clearly mandates that ballots must be postmarked by the deadline to be valid.
Lt. Gov. Henderson’s office stated: “While the Respondents are sensitive to the issues in this case and find it unfortunate that some voters’ ballots were not postmarked on time, they do not and cannot control the Postal Service. Nor can they ignore the clear dictates of the law. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a ballot is returned on time lies with the voter.”
Jenkins argues that excluding the late-postmarked ballots infringes upon the constitutional guarantee of free elections as contained in Article I, Section 17. He points to the historical context of the provision, emphasizing its importance in maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
Jenkins remarked, “Take a look at the Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 17… from 1896! ‘All elections shall be free, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.’ Including the post office.”
The case will be reviewed by the Utah Supreme Court justices during oral arguments scheduled for Friday morning. Jenkins hopes that the court will recognize the constitutional implications and rule in favor of counting the 1,171 ballots.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future elections in Utah. If the court rules in favor of Jenkins, it could set a precedent for how mail-in ballots with late postmarks are treated in subsequent elections.
Meanwhile, Utah election officials stand firm on the importance of adhering to current laws. They stress that it remains the responsibility of voters to ensure their ballots meet the deadline requirements to be counted.
To summarize, Colby Jenkins's challenge regarding 1,171 uncounted ballots will be heard by the Utah Supreme Court following a closely contested primary against Rep. Celeste Maloy. The state insists on adhering to postmark deadlines, while Jenkins claims this violates constitutional provisions. The outcome of the case may influence future election procedures.
On Thursday, bodycam footage showing the intense confrontation between a local police officer and Thomas Crooks, the would-be assassin of former President Donald Trump, was released.
According to the Washington Examiner, the footage captures the moments leading up to Crooks opening fire at a rally on July 13 despite being confronted by law enforcement.
Lt. Matthew Pearson, acting chief of the Butler Township Police Department, shared the revealing footage with the Washington Examiner. The video provides a stark view of events, beginning with an officer running towards the American Glass Research (AGR) building at 6:10 p.m., just a minute before the former president was shot.
In a dramatic sequence, the bodycam footage captures another officer hoisting his colleague onto the AGR building's roof. The officer briefly spots Crooks before Crooks turns his weapon toward him. As the officer attempts to draw his own gun, he falls approximately 8 feet, spraining his ankle in the process. Moments later, Crooks opens fire on Trump at 6:11 p.m.
Amidst the chaos, the injured officer quickly warns his peers about Crooks, providing a detailed description, which includes Crooks donning full tactical gear, having long hair and glasses, and carrying a bag. Although police on the ground were initially unaware of Crooks's fate, officers soon discovered Crooks’s lifeless body on the roof after the attack.
Further footage shows Crooks lying dead with a stream of blood running from the roof's peak to the edge. Additional clips reveal the intense aftermath as four officers carry Crooks’s blood-soaked body to a white tent. Reactions from rallygoers are also documented, including a witness exclaiming about the sight of Crooks being shot.
Inquiries from attendees about Crooks's unnoticed presence on the roof were met with officers' speculations involving various means of scaling the building. Although a bloodied receipt for a five-foot ladder was found on Crooks, the FBI stated that it likely wasn’t used in the attack.
Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe highlighted the heroism of the officers, suggesting they might have saved Trump's life by buying him critical time to react. "Can you imagine 10 seconds before that?" Slupe remarked, envisioning the peril Trump had narrowly escaped.
Slupe also defended the officer’s actions during the confrontation. A rallygoer’s remark about snipers on other rooftops led to further speculation about Crooks’s undetected approach, emphasizing the complexity of the situation faced by law enforcement.
Supporting documents unveiled by Senator Chuck Grassley provide further background on Crooks's activities and mindset. Grassley shared bodycam footage along with 46 pages of documents detailing Crooks’s membership at the Clairton Sportsmen’s Club.
The records show that Crooks joined the local gun club on August 10, 2023, and had visited 43 times, with 20 of those visits for target practice within the first four months. Crooks’s final visit, notably, was on July 12, 2024, one day before the attack occurred, focusing predominantly on rifle shooting.
The intense bodycam footage released on Thursday brings to light the critical seconds during which local police confronted Thomas Crooks. From the initial rooftop scramble to Crooks's final moments, the footage captures the fraught nature of the encounter and the subsequent aftermath.
Officers quickly shared vital details and warnings, enabling a swift response, even as Crooks managed to open fire. The heroism displayed by the involved officers, as suggested by Sheriff Michael Slupe, may have narrowly prevented a greater tragedy, illustrating the unpredictable risks inherent in protecting public figures.
Breitbart News reported that violent clashes continue to rock Venezuela as the death toll from anti-socialist protests rises to 24 following Nicolás Maduro's disputed re-election.
Nationwide protests erupted in Venezuela following Nicolás Maduro's July 28, 2023, presidential re-election, viewed by many as illegitimate, leading to brutal repression, numerous deaths, and human rights violations. The NGO Provea confirmed 24 fatalities amidst the government crackdown on dissent against the controversial election results.
The National Electoral Council (CNE) had declared Maduro the winner, sparking immediate unrest across the nation. Without releasing vote tallies or scrutinizing documents, the CNE quickly certified Maduro’s victory, claiming he received 51% of the vote. This move fueled skepticism and anger among the opposition and many Venezuelans.
The Venezuelan opposition published their own vote tallies, alleging that opposition candidate Edmundo González secured a significant win. They argued that the CNE’s results were fraudulent and manipulated in favor of Maduro.
Internationally, several countries, including the United States, have rejected Maduro’s victory and recognized González as the legitimate president. In contrast, only Maduro’s long-time allies and sympathetic regimes acknowledged his re-election. Amidst the chaos, the Maduro regime has initiated an aggressive campaign against dissidents. Over 2,000 individuals have reportedly been detained, with plans to send them to “reeducation” camps.
Protests have been particularly intense in low-income neighborhoods of Caracas and other major cities, according to Provea. Armed socialist gangs, known locally as colectivos, along with the Directorate of Strategic and Tactical Actions (DAET) of the Bolivarian National Police, have been implicated in at least 11 out of the 24 documented homicides.
The National Union of Press Workers of Venezuela (SNTP) reported the arbitrary detention of four journalists and graphic reporters, all facing terrorism charges. This crackdown on the press has raised significant concerns regarding freedom of the press and expression.
Digital platforms have been used to identify and target dissidents, with the regime relaunching Operation Tun Tun to persecute its opponents. This operation has a notorious history of human rights abuses.
Maduro’s administration has accused various regional leaders, international figures, and organizations of plotting against his rule, labeled collectively as “international Zionism.” This rhetoric has intensified the regime’s crackdown on perceived enemies.
Foro Penal, another notable Venezuelan NGO, confirmed 1,229 arbitrary detentions during the protests. Among the detained are 105 teenagers, five indigenous individuals, 16 people with disabilities, and 157 women.
Alfredo Romero, president of Foro Penal, highlighted the severe violations of legal rights, including restricted access to legal defense and lack of communication with family members. The average age of the detainees is 20, painting a grim picture of the youth's involvement in the current unrest.
Provea has also reported instances of harassment, job dismissals, and demotions of public administration employees for political reasons. Provea warns these actions could worsen, endangering more employees and their families. In a display of loyalty, the Venezuelan Armed Forces and police affirmed their commitment to Nicolás Maduro, naming him the “constitutional president” and “commander in chief.” This allegiance underscores the deepening divide within Venezuelan society.
As the death toll rises and the government’s control tightens, Venezuela remains ensnared in a spiral of violence and repression. Provea emphasized, “Denying people the human right to democracy, to electoral truth and repressing those who demand these basic principles, is a crime against human rights.”
The Italian American Civil Rights League (IACRL) is urging Governor Tim Walz to resign as Vice President Kamala Harris's running mate.
According to the Washington Examiner, the call comes amid allegations of racism against Walz, primarily due to his response during the 2020 George Floyd protests when a Christopher Columbus statue was destroyed.
Mike Crispi, a board member of the IACRL and a Trump delegate, has been vocal in his criticism of Governor Walz. He accused Walz of failing to protect the Columbus statue, a significant symbol of Italian American pride. "Tim Walz did nothing to stop radical vandals from targeting the most prominent symbol of Italian-American culture," Crispi stated.
The statue in question was torn down during the unrest following George Floyd's death. While Governor Walz acknowledged that there would be consequences, he also expressed an understanding of the protesters' grievances. This stance, however, did not sit well with Crispi.
Crispi labeled Walz's tenure as governor as one of disgrace, citing the 2020 riots as an example of his failed leadership. He claimed that Walz and his administration had advance knowledge of the plans to destroy the statue but chose not to intervene.
In supportive quotes, Crispi's critique was direct and harsh. "He knew they were coming and he did nothing to protect the statue," he emphasized, pointing to what he believes is a pattern of indifference and collusion with anti-Italian American sympathizers.
Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan was also brought into the fray. She had expressed her disdain for the legacy of Columbus, which fueled further consternation among the IACRL.
Christopher Columbus, who is of Genoese origin, serves as a figure of Italian American pride. Particularly, Columbus Day, celebrated since 1892 and recognized as a federal holiday in 1971, honors this heritage. The destruction of the statue, therefore, struck a deep personal and cultural chord.
During the debate surrounding the preservation of the statue, Flanagan stated, "There is no honor in the legacy of Christopher Columbus," a sentiment that resonated negatively with the Italian American community.
State Republicans backed the IACRL’s criticisms, asserting that the governor's office had prior knowledge of the intent to dismantle the statue. They opposed the perceived inaction by the administration, further straining ties.
Governor Walz's actions during the 2020 protests are being scrutinized again due to his recent selection as Harris's running mate. This development has reignited old wounds and political discord.
After the Columbus statue was destroyed, Walz commented on the possibility of repercussions. However, he simultaneously expressed empathy for the demonstrators' frustrations.
To summarize, the IACRL has condemned Governor Tim Walz's inaction during the 2020 George Floyd protests, particularly his response to the fall of a Christopher Columbus statue. The resulting call for Walz to step down as Kamala Harris's running mate highlights ongoing racial tensions and the cultural sensitivity surrounding Italian American heritage.
As CNN reported, Justice Neil Gorsuch has publicly defended the Supreme Court's recent decision to grant former President Donald Trump immunity in his election subversion case.
Gorsuch's comments come as controversy swirls around the ruling, rooted in a 1982 precedent and now shaping the legal landscape for presidential immunity.
Justice Gorsuch framed the Supreme Court’s decision as a natural extension of a 1982 precedent during an interview with Fox News. He emphasized that the ruling, which protects Trump and future presidents from most official actions, is based on the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case.
The 1982 decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald granted former President Richard Nixon and his successors immunity from civil lawsuits. It argued that allowing such legal actions would discourage presidents from executing their duties effectively.
Gorsuch, who was Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, stated, "The court was concerned at the time that unfettered civil lawsuits would 'chill' a president from 'exercising the powers' of the presidency." He further noted that President Trump would otherwise be "overwhelmed" by legal challenges, impairing the functioning of the executive office.
The Supreme Court's recent decision, which extends Nixon-era protections to the criminal context in Trump’s case, has not gone without significant backlash. The ruling has led to renewed calls from the left for structural changes and ethics reforms for the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority delivered the ruling in a 6-3 vote, with the justices splitting along ideological lines. The decision limits special counsel Jack Smith’s ability to present evidence of Trump’s unofficial actions following the 2020 election and grants immunity for most official actions.
Smith had contended that future presidents were unlikely to face politically motivated prosecutions, a position the court found unconvincing. The case is now with US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has scheduled a hearing for August 16.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Gorsuch described the decision as a "grave question" with "grave implications," acknowledging the weight of the court's ruling. CNN also reported that the justices quickly fell into ideological camps during the deliberations, with Roberts making little effort to find a middle ground.
Gorsuch pointed out that the Supreme Court, during Nixon’s time, avoided addressing the question of criminal immunity for former presidents. All the court did in this case, he argued, was extend the same legal principles to Trump, maintaining that the constitutional responsibilities of the presidency necessitate such protections.
The immunity ruling significantly influences Trump's legal strategies amidst multiple investigations. Gorsuch’s assertion that the court simply applied a long-standing precedent underscores the complex intersection of law and politics in the context of presidential responsibilities.
Gorsuch’s recent comments coincided with the end of a contentious Supreme Court term in early July. This timing, paired with the publication of his new book, "Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law," has brought additional media attention to his statements and perspectives.
Justice Neil Gorsuch's defense of the Supreme Court’s Trump immunity decision, framed as a continuation of a 1982 precedent, has sparked significant debate and calls for judicial reform. The ruling, which grants immunity to Trump for most official actions, is influencing ongoing legal battles and prompting discussions about the balance of power within the U.S. government. Gorsuch’s recent book tour has provided a platform for him to articulate his views, emphasizing the importance of consistent legal principles.