Former President Donald Trump has responded critically to Special Counsel Jack Smith's filing of a superseding indictment in the case related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to express his disapproval of the updated charges, calling for their immediate dismissal.
According to Breitbart News, the former president characterized the new indictment as an attempt to revive what he terms a "dead" witch hunt. The superseding indictment, returned by a Washington, D.C. grand jury, maintains the same four charges originally brought against Trump.
These charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Trump argues that the updated indictment suffers from the same issues as the original and should be dismissed without delay.
In his Truth Social post, Trump didn't mince words when addressing the new indictment. He described Special Counsel Jack Smith as "illegally appointed" and "deranged," suggesting that the updated charges were filed out of desperation and in an attempt to save face. Trump emphasized that the new indictment carried all the problems of the previous one and called for its immediate dismissal.
The former president also referenced a recent development in Florida, where a judge dismissed a documents case against him. Trump used this dismissal to bolster his argument against the validity of the current charges, implying a pattern of what he sees as baseless legal actions against him.
Trump further alleged that the timing and nature of the superseding indictment were politically motivated. He characterized it as an attempt to interfere with the upcoming election and divert public attention from what he perceives as failures of the current administration under Vice President Kamala Harris.
Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the case, provided an explanation for the filing of the superseding indictment.
In a court document, Smith stated:
The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government's efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court's holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States.
This statement suggests that the updated indictment was crafted in response to a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. Some aspects of the original indictment were reportedly removed or altered to align with the court's decision.
The charges in the superseding indictment remain unchanged from the initial filing. However, the presentation to a new grand jury and the modifications made in light of the Supreme Court's ruling represent significant procedural developments in the case.
Former President Donald Trump has strongly criticized the filing of a superseding indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith, calling for its immediate dismissal. The updated indictment maintains the same four charges related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump argues that the new filing is an attempt to revive what he calls a "dead" witch hunt and interfere with the upcoming election. The case continues to be a significant point of contention in the political and legal arenas, with potential implications for the future political landscape.
A Michigan judge ruled in favor of independent presidential candidate Cornel West on Saturday, overturning a previous decision to keep him off the state’s ballot.
The Michigan Bureau of Elections must now place West and his running mate on the ballot if they have submitted a sufficient number of valid signatures.
According to The Hill, Judge James Robert Redford of the Michigan Court of Claims said Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and the director of the Bureau of Elections “misapplied the law” when making their decision.
Earlier this month, the director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections informed West’s campaign that he would be disqualified from the ballot. The director stated that the reason for disqualification was due to “defects in the notarization” of his affidavit of identity (AOI). Judge Redford’s order said the AOIs filed “cannot serve as a mechanism to exclude them from the ballot.”
West’s campaign announced in June that it had gathered enough signatures to qualify for the Michigan ballot. The campaign submitted more than 26,000 signatures, which is significantly more than the required number.
This recent decision comes as West cleared enough signatures earlier this month to qualify for the ballot in numerous states, including Maine.
West celebrated the court’s decision in a statement, calling it a victory for democracy. He went on to say that his campaign will continue to fight for the rights of all voters.
Although he continues to gain ballot access in several states, West still faces an uphill battle in his bid for the White House. He has struggled to gain much traction and has received about 1 percent in most polling.
This ruling is not just a legal victory—it is a moral victory for everyone who believes in the sanctity of the democratic process. Our campaign submitted over 26,000 signatures, significantly more than required, which the court recognized as a legitimate expression of the people’s will. We are grateful for this affirmation and promise to continue championing the rights of all voters.
West’s campaign announced in June that it had gathered enough signatures to qualify for the Michigan ballot. The campaign submitted more than 26,000 signatures, which is significantly more than the required number. This recent decision comes as West cleared enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in numerous states, including Maine, earlier this month.
Although he continues to gain ballot access in several states, West still faces an uphill battle in his bid for the White House. He has struggled to gain much traction and has received about 1 percent in most polling.
West’s campaign announced in June that it had gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in Michigan. The campaign submitted more than 26,000 signatures, which is significantly more than required. This recent decision comes as West clears enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in numerous states, including Maine earlier this month.
A Michigan judge ruled in favor of independent presidential candidate Cornel West on Saturday. The judge overturned a previous decision to keep West off the state’s ballot. The Michigan Bureau of Elections must now place West and his running mate on the ballot if they have submitted a sufficient number of valid signatures. West celebrated the court’s decision in a statement, calling it a victory for democracy.
Attorney Matthew DePerno has withdrawn from his bid for a Michigan Supreme Court seat just before the Michigan Republican Party state convention.
According to Detroit Free Press, DePerno stepped aside on the eve of the convention, leaving Andrew Fink and Patrick O'Grady as the party's nominees.
The Michigan Republican Party state convention took place in Flint, drawing approximately 4,000 delegates, alternates, and guests. The convention was meant to finalize the party's nominees for various positions, including seats on three Michigan university boards, the State Board of Education, and two Michigan Supreme Court seats.
DePerno, known for his involvement in an unsuccessful lawsuit regarding alleged vote manipulation in Michigan's Antrim County during the 2020 election, announced his withdrawal via email to delegates late Friday. His decision came as he faced legal challenges, including awaiting trial on felony charges related to allegedly breaching election machines.
In his email, DePerno stated, "I’ve come to the conclusion that I can best help President Trump win Michigan by making sure that we have the strongest absentee and early vote program anywhere in the country — stronger than the Democrats." He emphasized his commitment to supporting former President Donald Trump and endorsed Branch County Circuit Judge Patrick O'Grady for the partial term on the Michigan Supreme Court.
DePerno’s campaign for the Supreme Court struggled to gain financial traction, with campaign finance records showing that he raised just over $100, the lowest amount among the candidates. Despite this, he remained a vocal supporter of Trump and the broader GOP agenda.
With DePerno out of the race, State Representative Andrew Fink, R-Hillsdale, was elected to run for an eight-year term on the Michigan Supreme Court. Fink’s nomination, along with O'Grady’s for the four-year partial term, set the stage for the party's ticket in the upcoming election.
Fink and O'Grady emerged as the GOP’s choices following the convention's deliberations. The other contenders were Detroit attorney Alexandria Taylor, who vied for the four-year term, and Mark Boonstra, who was also endorsed by Trump, competing for the eight-year term. Fink's and O'Grady's nominations reflected the party's direction heading into the November elections.
Kristina Karamo, the former Michigan Republican Party chair, also made headlines at the convention. Karamo, who attended to support a candidate, was escorted out by police after attempting to access the convention floor. Current party chair Pete Hoekstra clarified that Karamo was not a registered delegate and was offered a guest pass to observe from the gallery, which she declined.
Karamo’s removal from the convention floor added to the event’s intensity. She referred to those who escorted her out as "thugs," raising tensions among attendees. However, the focus quickly shifted back to the business at hand as the party finalized its slate of nominees.
The Michigan Republican Party’s state convention in Flint was more than just a nomination event; it reflected the ongoing divisions and challenges within the party. DePerno’s withdrawal and the subsequent election of Fink and O'Grady underscored the shifting dynamics within Michigan’s GOP.
DePerno's endorsements of O'Grady and Boonstra align with his commitment to advancing Trump's influence within the state. His withdrawal may have reshaped the Michigan Supreme Court race, but it also highlights the ongoing influence of Trump within the party.
Matt DePerno has withdrawn his candidacy for the Michigan Supreme Court after losing support from some Republicans due to his ongoing legal troubles. DePerno was facing charges related to an alleged plot to tamper with voting machines following the 2020 election. His exit leaves the Republican Party without a candidate for the upcoming Supreme Court election.
In a recent CNN interview, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California addressed the rising support for former President Donald Trump among Black men, attributing it to the clemency he granted several high-profile rappers.
Waters expressed concern over Trump's increasing appeal within this demographic, pointing to economic difficulties and pardons given by Trump during his presidency as contributing factors, as the Daily Caller reports.
Speaking to CNN’s Sara Sidner and John Berman on Friday, Waters tried to downplay the significance of Trump's rising support among Black men, attributing it largely to a specific subset of the population. She particularly referenced the hip-hop community, a group where Trump's support seems to be gaining traction.
Waters remarked that some individuals within this group may feel gratitude toward Trump due to his pardons of rappers like Lil Wayne. She suggested that these pardons have given Trump a foothold among certain black men, though she emphasized that this group remains a small segment of the black electorate. “It’s only a small segment,” Waters noted during the interview. She underscored that these individuals, having been personally impacted by Trump's actions, might express their thanks but said they should recognize broader issues affecting their community.
Waters acknowledged that economic challenges also play a role in Trump's growing support among Black men. She highlighted the rising costs of living, particularly in areas like rent and homeownership, which have become significant burdens for many in the Black community.
Inflation, which reached a 40-year peak of 9% in June 2022, has exacerbated these financial pressures. Waters pointed out that prices have risen by over 20% since President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took office in January 2021, further straining household budgets.
Waters stressed the need for more substantial support and education to help young Black entrepreneurs, who often struggle with limited access to capital and other resources. She emphasized that these economic factors are driving some Black voters toward Trump, whom they perceive as more attuned to their financial concerns.
In her interview, Waters called for improved education on public policy issues and better support for young Black entrepreneurs. She argued that many young people in the Black community are eager to start their own businesses but face significant obstacles, including lack of access to capital.
Waters believes that the Black community needs more comprehensive education on the policies that affect their daily lives. She urged leaders to focus on providing the resources necessary for young people to achieve economic stability, which she sees as critical to countering Trump's appeal.
“We’ve got to do a better job,” Waters stated, emphasizing the importance of equipping the next generation with the tools they need to succeed. She pointed out that while some may be drawn to Trump due to his actions and rhetoric, there is a need for a more profound understanding of what is required to improve the quality of life for all.
Waters’ comments come amid growing concern within the Democratic Party about Trump's increasing support among Black men. While she acknowledged the influence of Trump's pardons, Waters remained adamant that this support is limited to a small segment of the Black community, particularly within the hip-hop sphere.
Economic factors, including rising costs of living and limited opportunities for young entrepreneurs, are also driving some Black men toward Trump. Waters emphasized the need for better education and support to address these challenges and to offer viable alternatives to those who might be swayed by Trump's appeal.
As the 2024 election approaches, Waters’ remarks highlight the importance of addressing the economic and social concerns of Black voters. She concluded by reiterating the need for a more concerted effort to educate and empower the next generation, ensuring that they are not drawn to candidates who may offer short-term gains but fail to address long-term issues.
The Texas Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to establish a new 15th Court of Appeals, a move that has sparked significant controversy across the state.
The high court's decision affirms the creation of a statewide appellate court that will start hearing cases on Sept. 1, 2024, with judges initially appointed by the GOP governor until elections are held in November 2026, as the Houston Chronicle reports.
In a ruling that solidifies Abbott's influence over Texas' judicial landscape, the Texas Supreme Court has upheld the formation of the 15th Court of Appeals. This new court, unlike the existing 14 appellate courts in the state, will have jurisdiction over cases from across Texas.
The 15th Court of Appeals was created through Senate Bill 1045, legislation that Abbott strongly supported. The court is slated to begin its operations on Sept. 1, 2024, with the governor appointing judges to preside until elections are held in November 2026. Critics, particularly Democrats, have accused Abbott of creating this court to bypass the traditionally Democrat-leaning appellate courts in urban areas like Dallas and Houston.
The creation of the 15th Court of Appeals has not been without legal challenges. Dallas County, in particular, has been vocal in its opposition. The county, along with its sheriff, filed a lawsuit against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) over the transfer of inmates deemed unfit to stand trial to state hospitals.
As the HHSC planned to move this case to the newly formed 15th Court of Appeals upon its opening, Dallas County took the issue to the Texas Supreme Court. The county argued that the 15th Court was unconstitutional and sought intervention from the highest court in the state.
The Texas Supreme Court, however, sided with the HHSC and Governor Abbott, denying Dallas County's petition. In the majority opinion, Justice Evan Young emphasized the state’s historical precedence for legislative changes to the court system.
Proponents of the new court argue that it will improve the efficiency of handling business-related cases by providing a judicial panel with expertise in business law. This aligns with Governor Abbott's broader agenda to make Texas a more attractive destination for corporations.
The 15th Court of Appeals is expected to hear cases not only from Abbott’s newly created "business courts" but also cases involving statewide issues and elected officials. Supporters claim this will streamline the judicial process and ensure that business-related disputes are handled by judges with appropriate experience.
Opponents, however, view the court's creation as an overtly political maneuver. They contend that it undermines the independence of the judiciary by allowing the governor to appoint judges who might be more sympathetic to corporate interests until the first elections in 2026.
Justice Evan Young, writing for the majority, defended the decision by stating that the Texas Constitution does not prohibit the creation of a new appellate court with statewide jurisdiction. He pointed out that the terms "district" and "circuit" in the constitution can have broader meanings, allowing for such legislative changes.
With this ruling, Abbott's vision for a business-friendly judiciary has gained further momentum. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications, not only for the state's legal landscape but also for its political dynamics as the 2024 general election approaches.
The 15th Court of Appeals is now set to begin its work on Sept. 1, 2024, marking a significant shift in Texas' appellate court system. The judges appointed by Abbott will serve until the November 2026 elections, at which point voters will have the chance to elect new judges or retain the current ones.
A federal judge has ruled against allowing a key defense witness in Hunter Biden's upcoming tax evasion trial.
According to Scripps News, Judge Mark Scarsi made this decision during a pretrial hearing on Wednesday, potentially impacting President Biden's son's defense strategy.
The witness in question was prepared to testify about the root cause of Hunter Biden's drug addiction. Biden's legal team has been attempting to frame his alleged tax crimes within the context of his struggle with addiction, arguing that it clouded his judgment during the period in question.
While the ruling poses a challenge for the defense, it doesn't completely derail their approach. Mark Geragos, the lawyer who will be representing Biden in the trial, made it clear during the hearing that he still intends to argue that Biden's decision-making was impaired by his drug use.
However, Judge Scarsi's decision prevents the defense from telling the jury that Biden's addiction was caused by specific traumatic events in his life. This includes the death of his brother Beau in 2015, which Biden has previously cited as a catalyst for his spiral into drug abuse.
The defense team had also suggested that early childhood trauma, stemming from a car accident that killed Biden's mother and sister when he was two years old, contributed to his substance abuse issues. The judge's ruling now bars them from making these direct causal arguments.
Hunter Biden faces accusations of evading taxes amounting to at least $1.4 million and falsifying some of his tax returns. Prosecutors allege that he claimed personal expenses as business deductions, including spending on what they describe as an "extravagant" lifestyle involving illegal drugs and payments to women with whom he's accused of having sexual relationships.
The trial is set to begin in early September, with jury selection scheduled to start on September 5. According to statements made during the hearing, lawyers expect the trial to last eight full days for the presentation of evidence and testimony.
Judge Scarsi anticipates that jury selection will take one to two days. This timeline suggests that a verdict in the tax evasion case could be reached by late September, just weeks before Biden faces sentencing in November for a separate federal gun charge conviction.
The tax evasion trial represents another chapter in Hunter Biden's ongoing legal troubles. Earlier this summer, he was convicted on federal gun charges, adding to the scrutiny he faces as the son of the current president.
The outcome of this trial could have significant implications for Hunter Biden personally and potentially for the broader political landscape as his father, President Joe Biden, continues to navigate his presidency amidst these family legal issues.
As the trial approaches, both the prosecution and defense teams will finalize their strategies within the parameters set by Judge Scarsi's rulings. The inability to present testimony on the specific causes of Biden's addiction may force the defense to adjust their approach in demonstrating how his substance abuse issues relate to the tax evasion charges.
In conclusion, the federal judge's decision to exclude a key defense witness in Hunter Biden's tax evasion trial marks a significant development in the case. This ruling limits the defense's ability to argue about the root causes of Biden's addiction in relation to the alleged tax crimes. The trial, set to begin in September, will focus on charges of tax evasion and false tax returns, with potential ramifications extending beyond the courtroom.
The military service of Gov. Tim Walz has become a flashpoint in a heated political battle, with 50 Republican military veteran members of Congress accusing him of misrepresenting his military record.
In a letter addressed to Walz, the GOP veterans demanded that the Minnesota governor "come clean" about his service, igniting a partisan clash that has drawn support and condemnation from both sides of the aisle.
The letter, shared with POLITICO, brought together an array of Republicans, from staunch Trump allies to more moderate voices, united in their criticism of Walz. Among the signatories were high-profile figures such as Sens. Joni Ernst, Roger Marshall, Rick Scott, and Roger Wicker, as well as Rep. Brian Mast, a combat veteran who lost his legs in Afghanistan.
The GOP lawmakers' letter centers on what they describe as "egregious misrepresentations" of Walz’s military service. Walz, who served 24 years in the Army National Guard, has faced scrutiny over inconsistencies in his military record, particularly following his selection as Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate.
Critics accuse Walz of inflating his military accomplishments, with the letter alleging that he "lied" about his service. The letter expressed outrage, stating that Walz’s actions have violated the trust of fellow veterans.
Sen. JD Vance, a vocal critic who has accused the governor of engaging in "stolen valor, " is leading the charge against Walz. Vance emphasized that Walz has never served in a combat zone and called on him to stop pretending to be something he's not.
In response to the GOP’s letter, 18 Democratic military veteran members of Congress signed a statement defending Walz’s military record. They praised him as a "steadfast advocate for veterans and military families," pushing back against the Republican attacks.
Walz’s spokesperson echoed this sentiment, referencing the Democrats' statement as a testament to the governor’s dedication to the military community. Additionally, the Harris campaign released an open letter signed by 1,000 military veterans in support of Walz.
The controversy surrounding Walz’s military record has been exacerbated by the Harris campaign's initial description of Walz as a "retired Command Sergeant Major." Though he once held the rank, he was later demoted before his retirement in 2005.
The allegations against Walz have reignited old criticisms. During his 2018 gubernatorial race, Walz was accused of misrepresenting his rank and his decision to run for Congress in 2005, allegedly to avoid deployment to Iraq.
At a recent event in Los Angeles, Walz addressed the accusations, defending his service record and expressing pride in his military career. He extended gratitude to all veterans, including his political opponents, acknowledging their service and sacrifice.
Despite his defense, Walz remains a target for critics like Vance, who continue to challenge his military credibility. Vance has been relentless in his criticism, accusing Walz of lying about his military service, further fueling the controversy.
The ongoing scrutiny underscores the high stakes of military service in American politics, particularly for those seeking national office. As Walz continues to defend his record, the question of how military service is represented and perceived remains central to the debate.
Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux shared a compelling account of his contrasting experiences with presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, highlighting their differing approaches to law enforcement.
In an interview with Just the News, Boudreaux recounted a personal interaction with Trump during his first presidential campaign and compared it to a recent encounter with Harris.
Boudreaux described how Trump went out of his way to thank him and other law enforcement officers for their service, acknowledging the challenges of their profession. In contrast, the sheriff stated that Harris did not engage with law enforcement personnel during a recent event where officers surrounded her for a campaign advertisement.
Sheriff Boudreaux recalled a significant moment during Trump's first presidential campaign when he was working on a security detail. According to Boudreaux, Trump made a deliberate effort to approach him despite being separated by a crowd.
Boudreaux said:
I was in uniform standing off to the side as his detail came through to make their way over to where he was going to give his speech. Donald Trump made his way through a crowd about 20 to 30 feet over to me, shook my hand and said he wanted to thank me and the men and women in law enforcement, because he knows we have a tough job and that if he is president will support us.
The sheriff emphasized that this interaction occurred without any cameras, which made the gesture even more meaningful.
In stark contrast to his experience with Trump, Boudreaux described a recent encounter with Vice President Kamala Harris during the filming of a campaign advertisement. The sheriff was featured in the background of the ad, which aimed to portray Harris as tough on border security and crime.
Boudreaux stated that Harris arrived at the last minute and did not interact with the law enforcement officers present. He noted that she neither greeted nor shook hands with anyone standing behind her and promptly left after the filming was complete.
The sheriff expressed his disapproval of Harris using footage from a 2014 press conference in her recent campaign advertisement. Boudreaux made it clear that he does not support Harris and finds the use of the footage misleading.
Boudreaux said:
It's deceptive and I couldn't in good faith, let any of my constituents here or anyone who has taken a look at that ad, have it imply that I or anyone in law enforcement is supporting her based on her track record, because that's truly not the case.
Boudreaux's account of these contrasting interactions sheds light on the relationship between presidential candidates and law enforcement officials. The sheriff's experience suggests that personal gestures of appreciation, such as those demonstrated by Trump, may resonate strongly with law enforcement personnel.
On the other hand, the lack of engagement described in Harris' case could potentially be viewed unfavorably by members of the law enforcement community. Boudreaux's willingness to speak out about these experiences indicates the importance of candidate-police relations in the broader context of political campaigns.
In conclusion, Sheriff Mike Boudreaux's account provides insight into the differing approaches of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris towards law enforcement. The sheriff's positive interaction with Trump, characterized by personal acknowledgment and gratitude, stands in contrast to his description of a distant and non-engaging encounter with Harris. Boudreaux's criticism of Harris' campaign ad further underscores his desire to clarify his position and prevent any misinterpretation of support for her candidacy.
According to NBC News, the Manhattan district attorney's office has chosen to leave the decision on former President Donald Trump's request to delay his sentencing to the judge overseeing the case.
The determination is now in the hands of New York state Judge Juan Merchan, who will rule on September 16 on Trump's motion to overturn his May conviction.
Prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney's office have opted not to take a position on the timing of Trump’s sentencing, which is currently scheduled for September 18. This delay request comes after Trump's legal team argued that more time is needed following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity.
Trump's May conviction stems from 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. His lawyers are now pushing for the conviction to be overturned, arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity should lead to a reassessment of the evidence presented at trial.
The Supreme Court decision did not directly address the evidentiary issues Trump’s lawyers are raising. However, Trump’s legal team claims that evidence, including testimony from former White House aide Hope Hicks, should have been excluded under the new interpretation of immunity. They assert that the timeline for appeal is too short, labeling the period between the September 16 ruling and the scheduled sentencing as "unreasonably short."
Prosecutors, however, maintain that the Supreme Court's decision does not impact the evidence related to Trump’s personal conduct. They argue that the delay requested by Trump focuses on evidentiary issues, not on any form of immunity from prosecution.
Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial resulting in Trump's conviction, is expected to make a pivotal ruling on September 16. This ruling will address Trump's motion to overturn his conviction based on the Supreme Court's decision. If Merchan sides with Trump's legal team, it could potentially lead to the dismissal of the charges or a significant delay in sentencing.
Trump's sentencing was originally scheduled for July 11 but was postponed at his request to September 18. The upcoming ruling by Judge Merchan could again shift this timeline, especially if Trump pursues appellate intervention following the September 16 decision.
Prosecutors have highlighted the complications involved in preparing for sentencing, noting the cost and potential futility if Trump’s conviction is overturned or further delayed. They also referenced recent threats and an assassination attempt as factors contributing to the complexity of this high-profile case.
A delay in sentencing would be a significant win for Trump, as it would alleviate immediate concerns about facing multiple criminal trials this year. Trump is already contending with several legal challenges, including a classified documents case in Florida, a federal election interference trial, and an election interference case in Georgia, the latter of which has been postponed to at least December.
Trump’s legal strategy hinges on the argument that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity should influence his New York case. Prosecutors, on the other hand, argue that the ruling does not apply to the specific evidentiary issues raised by Trump’s defense team.
With Judge Merchan’s ruling set for September 16, the outcome will determine whether Trump will be sentenced as planned on September 18 or if the process will be further delayed. Trump's lawyers continue to press for more time, arguing that the current timeline does not allow for a fair appeal process.
Prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney's office are deferring to Judge Juan Merchan regarding former President Donald Trump's request to delay his sentencing for falsifying business records until after the election. This decision stems from Trump's lawyers arguing that they need more time to pursue an appeal if the judge denies Trump's motion to dismiss the conviction, which was influenced by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. The sentencing is currently scheduled for September 18, just two days after the judge is set to rule on Trump’s motion.
In a recent Supreme Court decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch aligned with his liberal colleagues in dissenting from the majority's ruling on Title IX regulations.
The Court's 5-4 decision denied the Biden administration's request to block a lower court injunction on new Title IX rules, as reported by Newsweek.
The case revolves around the Department of Education's (DOE) new Title IX rules, which were finalized earlier this year and went into effect on August 1, 2024. These rules, in part, reversed a Trump-era interpretation that excluded gender identity and sexual orientation from Title IX protections.
Several Republican-led states filed lawsuits against these new regulations, resulting in lower federal courts temporarily blocking the entirety of the new rules in 26 states.
The Supreme Court's majority declined the DOE's emergency request to reinstate portions of the new rules unrelated to gender identity and sexual orientation. The majority stated they were not provided "a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts' interim conclusions."
Justice Gorsuch joined Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. They argued that while the gender identity and sexual orientation rules should be paused during appeals, the rest of the new rules should be allowed to resume.
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, stated, "I would grant most of the Government's stay requests and leave enjoined only its enforcement of the three challenged provisions. The lower courts went beyond their authority to remedy the discrete harms alleged here."
The Court's decision does not indicate how it might rule on any of the new Title IX rules in the future, including the provisions regarding gender identity and sexual orientation. It merely allows the lower court injunctions to remain in place while the cases proceed through the appeals process.
A DOE spokesperson responded to the ruling, saying:
While we do not agree with this ruling, the Department stands by the final Title IX regulations released in April 2024, and we will continue to defend those rules in the expedited litigation in the lower courts. The schools that are not enjoined within the 24 states are obligated to comply with the final 2024 Title IX regulations and we look forward to working with school communities all across the country to ensure the Title IX guarantee of nondiscrimination in school is every student's experience.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti welcomed the Court's decision, stating, "I am grateful that the Supreme Court of the United States agreed that no part of the Biden administration's Title IX rule should go into effect while the case proceeds. This is a win for student privacy, free speech, and the rule of law."
On the other hand, civil rights organizations expressed disappointment with the ruling. Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project, criticized the use of lawsuits as "attacks on trans kids as a way to roll back other rights for women and girls."
Cathryn Oakley, the Human Rights Campaign's senior director of legal policy, stated:
It is disappointing that the Supreme Court has allowed far-right forces to stop the implementation of critical civil rights protections for youth. Every young person deserves the opportunity to be able to access a public education without discrimination because of who they are.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to deny the Biden administration's request to partially lift injunctions on new Title IX rules has sparked debate. Justice Gorsuch's alignment with the liberal justices in dissent highlights the complexity of the issue. The ruling allows lower court injunctions to remain in place in 26 states while appeals proceed. Reactions to the decision have been mixed, with supporters praising it as a win for privacy and free speech, while critics argue it hinders civil rights protections for students.