US Supreme Court's Roberts hears key Democrat's call for enforceable ethics code; Reuters, September 17, 2024

Nate Raymond, Reuters;  US Supreme Court's Roberts hears key Democrat's call for enforceable ethics code

"The Democratic chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday argued during a closed-door federal judiciary meeting attended by Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts that the high court's recently-adopted ethical code of conduct falls short and needs a means of enforcement, a person familiar with the matter said.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois spoke as one of several lawmakers invited to attend the semi-annual meeting of the U.S. Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's top policymaking body, which Roberts heads."

Pulitzer winner returns to the University of Pittsburgh for forum on Supreme Court ethics; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 12, 2024

ABBY LIPOLD , Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Pulitzer winner returns to the University of Pittsburgh for forum on Supreme Court ethics

"Mr. Murphy said about half of the readers of his series thought “there was an obvious breach in propriety,” but the other half thought the issue wasn’t worth reporting on."

Supreme Court Ethics Controversies: All The Scandals That Led Biden To Endorse Code Of Conduct; Forbes, July 29, 2024

Alison Durkee , Forbes; Supreme Court Ethics Controversies: All The Scandals That Led Biden To Endorse Code Of Conduct

"President Joe Biden endorsed the Supreme Court imposing a binding code of ethics on Monday, following a string of recent ethics issues the court has faced that have ramped up criticism of the court and sparked cries for a code of conduct from lawmakers and legal experts."

Elena Kagan Endorses High Court Ethics Enforcement Mechanism; Bloomberg Law, July 25, 2024

Suzanne Monyak, Lydia Wheeler , Bloomberg Law; Elena Kagan Endorses High Court Ethics Enforcement Mechanism

"Justice Elena Kagan proposed Chief Justice John Roberts appoint a panel of judges to enforce the US Supreme Court’s code of conduct.

While speaking Thursday at a judicial conference in Sacramento, California, Kagan said she trusts Roberts and if he creates “some sort of committee of highly respected judges with a great deal of experience and a reputation for fairness,” that seems like a good solution...

Kagan, in response to a moderator’s question at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s annual judicial conference, acknowledged there are difficulties in deciding who should enforce an ethics code for the justices.

“But I feel as though we, however hard it is, that we could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this,” she said."

How to Get Voters the Facts They Need Without a Trump Jan. 6 Trial; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Andrew Weissmann, The New York Times ; How to Get Voters the Facts They Need Without a Trump Jan. 6 Trial

"The benefit of an evidentiary hearing would be enormous, giving the public at least some information it needs before going to the polls in November. The hearing would permit the airing, in an adversarial proceeding with full due process for Mr. Trump, evidence that goes to the heart of the most profound indictment in this nation’s history."

God save us from this dishonorable court; The Washington Post, July 1, 2024

 Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; God save us from this dishonorable court

"Smith’s office is now consigned to assess the tatters in which the court’s ruling has left its prosecution and determine, like a homeowner after a tornado has touched down, what can be salvaged.

The country is now left to worry about whether Trump will ever be held accountable — and about the implications of the court’s ruling for future presidents, including, most chillingly, Trump himself.

As Jackson wrote in a separate dissent, “Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when — if ever — a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act ‘manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority,’ they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike.”

Sotomayor was similarly apocalyptic. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she closed her dissent. Both Sotomayor and Jackson abandoned the customary “respectfully” — for good reason.

God knows what a reelected Trump would do in a second term. God save us from this dishonorable court."

The Disturbing Footnote in Supreme Court’s Trump Immunity Ruling; The New Republic, July 1, 2024

Edith Olmsted, The New Republic ; The Disturbing Footnote in Supreme Court’s Trump Immunity Ruling

"While the Department of Justice has long held that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted, the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on the issue—until now. In one brief footnote of his majority opinion granting sweeping protections to the president, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed the department’s rule.

“Our decision in Clinton permitted claims alleging unofficial acts to proceed against the sitting President,” he wrote, referring to Clinton v. Jones, a civil suit brought against former President Bill Clinton over conduct from before he was president. “In the criminal context, however, the Justice Department ‘has long recognized’ that ‘the separation of powers precludes the criminal prosecution of a sitting President.’”"

Trump v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court, July 1, 2024

 U.S. Supreme Court; Trump v. United States

The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

The Editorial Board , The New York Times; The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents

"As of Monday, the bedrock principle that no one is above the law has been set aside. In the very week that the nation celebrates its founding, the court undermined the reason for the American Revolution by giving presidents what one dissenting justice called a “law-free zone” in which to act, taking a step toward restoring the monarchy that the Declaration of Independence rejected."

The Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling is a Victory for Donald Trump; The New Yorker, July 1, 2024

Amy Davidson Sorkin, The New Yorker; The Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling is a Victory for Donald Trump

"The conservative majority answered their alarm with sarcasm, dismissiveness, and, perhaps most disturbingly, glorification of the personage of the President—swooning about a “vigorous” and “energetic” executive while warning of the dangers of one who is “feeble.” (Those words, in light of Biden’s debate struggles, might provoke a range of painful reflections.) Roberts wrote, of the dissents, “They strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.” He’s wrong about that. The Court went further than it would have needed to, even if the goal was simply shielding Trump from Jack Smith."

Thomas and Alito took part in the case, despite calls for their recusal.; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Adam Liptak, The New York Times ; Thomas and Alito took part in the case, despite calls for their recusal.

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejecting calls for their disqualification, participated in the decision on the scope of former President Donald J. Trump’s immunity from prosecution.

Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices’ wives raised serious questions about their impartiality."

Supreme Court delivers big win for Trump on immunity: 5 takeaways; The Hill, July 1, 2024

REBECCA BEITSCH AND ZACH SCHONFELD , The Hill; Supreme Court delivers big win for Trump on immunity: 5 takeaways

"The majority’s decision provides a broad shield to former presidents for their conduct while in the White House."

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution; Fox News, July 1, 2024

 Brooke Singman , Brianna Herlihy, Fox News; Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority...

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, former President Trump said, "I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years, and now the courts have spoken." 

"This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll—by a lot—and we will make America great again," he said."

Historians, legal experts express dismay at Trump immunity ruling; The Roll Call, July 1, 2024

 Ryan Tarinelli, The Roll Call; Historians, legal experts express dismay at Trump immunity ruling

"Historians and legal experts warned Monday that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling opens the door to dangerous abuses of power and strikes against foundational American principles of accountability under the law...

Presidential historian and author Michael Beschloss was among those who referred to the idea that the decision cut against the intent of the nation’s founders.

“Thanks to Supreme Court today, Presidents in future will have access to far more unaccountable power than they ever have had in American history,” Beschloss posted on social media. “Founders wanted a President, not a King.”...

Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas governor who ran unsuccessfully in the GOP 2024 presidential primary, said the Supreme Court gave presidents greater control of the Justice Department. That’s because, Hutchinson argued, the decision says an “official act” that gets immunity includes threatening to fire the attorney general if he does not take an action.

“I can only imagine how this may be abused,” Hutchinson tweeted...

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a statement that the ruling “makes perfect sense to me” because core constitutional authorities must come with absolute immunity and other official acts will be determined by factual analysis.

“The Supreme Court’s dissent in this case is foolish in every way, particularly Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson’s argument that this decision allows a president to assassinate their opponent,” Graham said. “The liberal members of the Court and the Left have lost their minds when it comes to President Trump.”...

A White House official responded to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision by noting Biden has said “nobody is above the law.”

“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works,” spokesman Ian Sams said in an email. “We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down.”"

Justices 'fear for democracy' in dissent on Trump immunity; BBC News, July 1, 2024

Mike Wendling , BBC News; Justices 'fear for democracy' in dissent on Trump immunity

"Six conservative-leaning justices signed the majority opinion, but the three liberals dissented.

Led by Sonia Sotomayor, they expressed "fear for our democracy".

"Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Immune."

"Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

She was joined in her dissent by the court's two other liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan."

The Supreme Court’s disastrous Trump immunity decision, explained; Vox, July 1, 2024

Ian Millhiser, Vox; The Supreme Court’s disastrous Trump immunity decision, explained

"Trump v. United States is an astonishing opinion. It holds that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution — essentially, a license to commit crimes — so long as they use the official powers of their office to do so."

Supreme Court Justices: Ethics, recusal and public perception; WOUB Public Media, June 28, 2024

WOUB Public Media; Supreme Court Justices: Ethics, recusal and public perception

"The U.S. Supreme Court has hit an all-time low in public trust and confidence.

In this episode of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson explore the reasons behind this decline and the immense power wielded by Supreme Court justices.

They delve into why the public sees the court as more political than judicial, eroding faith in the rule of law.

The episode also addresses shady financial dealings, unreported gifts, and questionable public actions and statements by justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

These issues raise serious ethical concerns and undermine the court’s integrity, much to the consternation of many legal analysts and ethicists.

Tune in to “Next Witness…Please” as the judges discuss potential solutions to these ethical challenges and ways the Supreme Court can restore public trust."

The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states; AP, June 26, 2024

MARK SHERMAN , AP; The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices threw out lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that federal officials leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented. 

The decision should not affect typical social media users or their posts."

Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case; The New York Times, June 19, 2024

 Leah Litman, The New York Times; Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case

"The court is a busy place, though the justices are completing decisions at the second slowest rate since the 1946 term, according to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal...

In 1974, the Watergate special prosecutor squared off against President Richard Nixon over his refusal to release Oval Office tape recordings of his conversations with aides. Nixon argued that he was immune from a subpoena seeking the recordings. Last year, Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, looked at how long that case took once it reached the Supreme Court on May 31 of that year. The justices gave the parties 21 days to file their briefs, and then 10 days to respond. Oral argument was held on July 8. Sixteen days later, on July 24, the court issued its 8-0 decision ordering Nixon to turn over the tapes. The chief justice, Warren Burger, who had been nominated to the court by Nixon, wrote the opinion. Total elapsed time: 54 days. Nixon subsequently resigned.

As of Tuesday, 110 days had passed since the court agreed to hear the Trump immunity case. And still no decision."

‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark Case Morphs Into Free Speech Debate; Bloomberg Law, June 18, 2024

 Laura Heymann , Bloomberg Law; ‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark Case Morphs Into Free Speech Debate

"The US Supreme Court’s June 13 decision in the “Trump Too Small” trademark case revealed a potential rift among the justices on First Amendment jurisprudence but did little to advance intellectual property law...

Trademark law, the Supreme Court has said in prior cases, is primarily about two goals: preventing confusion among consumers by ensuring accurate source identification and preserving trademark owners’ reputation and goodwill. For these justices, the names clause passed muster because prohibiting the registration of personal names without consent was self-evidently reasonable in light of these purposes; no further analysis was required."