A federal grand jury in Maryland is examining whether the Justice Department‘s mortgage-fraud investigation involving Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was properly handled by Trump administration officials, according to a source who spoke about her interview with prosecutors. The seemingly unusual review has drawn in witness Christine Bish, a California Republican congressional candidate who assembled a

The Justice Department will release additional files from its investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein within 30 days, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Wednesday, while signaling that an active federal inquiry in New York and the need to shield victims could mean the public never sees a complete record. Bondi, speaking at a

A veteran defense lawyer with a decadeslong career navigating Washington’s most politically charged cases sharply pushed back Monday against the Trump administration’s mortgage fraud inquiries targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, accusing federal officials of weaponizing thin claims to go after the president’s perceived enemies. Abbe Lowell, long

EXCLUSIVE — A group of Senate Republicans led by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) is pressing the federal judiciary to sideline Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia while the House of Representatives considers whether to impeach him. The Republicans argue in a new letter that his handling of

Multiple defendants from the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol who faced charges for obstructing Congress are seeing those charges dropped, according to a Washington Examiner review of court records, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Justice Department had applied the charge too broadly.

In the case known as Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Joe Biden’s Justice Department wrongfully levied a felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding against Jan. 6 defendants, finding the statute only applies to conduct such as manipulation or destruction of documents. Ever since then, defendants who have yet to be tried or sentenced are seeing a consistent windfall from that decision.

Prominent Jan. 6 attorney speaks out

Bill Shipley, a prominent defense attorney who has represented dozens of Capitol riot defendants, told the Washington Examiner that prosecutors have been dropping the obstruction charge, known as 1512(c)(2), “and offering pleas to other charges.”

The Washington Examiner first reported on this emerging pattern in mid-July, just weeks after the Fischer ruling, but since then, the rate of cases affected by the high court’s decision “has become more than just a trickle,” Shipley said. On Wednesday, the attorney posted to X that the government is now “doing it in every case that is about to go to trial.”

There are 259 people, around 2% of all Jan. 6 defendants, who have been charged with the felony obstruction count, according to the DOJ, with around 133 having already been sentenced. Seventeen of the 133 convicted of this charge and no other felony are serving incarceration sentences.

Now, up to 126 defendants awaiting sentencing or pending trial could stand to benefit from the recent pattern of dropped obstruction charges, whether they’re paying thousands of dollars by the hour for an attorney or if they’re bold enough to represent themselves in court.

“I’m not here claiming that great lawyering by me brought that about,” Shipley wrote on X in reference to the flow of 1512(c)(2) counts dropped.

The proof is in the case filings

The case of Deborah Lynn Lee, a 58-year-old woman from northeastern Pennsylvania who recently saw her felony obstruction charge dropped on her birthday, Aug. 2, is a prime example of the DOJ’s retreat.

Lee still faces misdemeanor counts of entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. Altogether, she could face up to three years in prison and fines up to $210,000, though it’s still a far cry from the possible 23 years in prison and $460,000 in fines she faced if she had not convinced prosecutors to drop the obstruction count.

Notably, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Diamond provided no explanation for the dismissal of the felony count.

Lee’s trial was slated for Sept. 4, but her attorney, Shipley, insists that she can opt for a magistrate judge for her trial now that it is only a four-count misdemeanor case, meaning another new trial date will likely be set for her.

Another example recently unfolded in the case of Michael Pope, who traveled with his brother, William Pope, to the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6 in support of then-President Donald Trump’s protest against his election defeat. Prosecutors on Aug. 2 agreed to dismiss Michael Pope’s obstruction count, citing the “interest of justice and in order to clarify and simplify the issues to be resolved as a result of the trial of the defendant.”

William Pope is defending himself in his own case, and his judge has ordered prosecutors to provide their position on his obstruction charge before the next status conference on Aug. 23, a signal that he, too, could see this charge dropped.

The growing trend of dropped obstruction charges by no means suggests the affected defendants are completely off the hook for their alleged crimes, as not one defendant awaiting a trial or sentence is charged solely on the obstruction count. However, the pattern may suggest the DOJ is now more focused on the expediency of adjudicating pending cases while prosecutors continue to evaluate what to do with 1512(c)(2) cases moving forward.

In recent weeks, prosecutors within U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves’s office have written in court filings the government is evaluating its approach to 1512(c)(2) “carefully,” while sticking firmly to the notion that the Supreme Court did not “reject application” of the felony count to the riot.

“Rather, the Court explained that the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding—such as witness testimony or intangible information—or attempted to do so,” Graves’s office wrote in response to defendant Michael Oliveras, who is seeking to postpone his sentencing in light of Fischer.

Former federal prosecutor and National Review columnist Andy McCarthy told the Washington Examiner that he did not have first-hand knowledge of the DOJ’s handling of the cases with felony obstruction counts but said it “makes sense” that prosecutors have been dropping those counts.

“If a case is not scheduled for trial any time soon, the prosecutors can bide their time and try to negotiate some kind of guilty plea, knowing that, if negotiations fail, they can always dismiss the case down the road,” McCarthy said. “But if the case is already scheduled for trial, and the prosecutors believe they can’t win because of the Fischer decision, it’s not surprising that they’d drop those cases.”

What about defendants who have already been sentenced?

For defendants who have already pleaded guilty to obstruction felony counts or have already been sentenced, prosecutors are maintaining that those convictions should not be vacated.

According to DOJ sentencing data, at least 35 people have already pleaded guilty to the obstruction count or other charges they faced.

Prosecutors cite the Supreme Court’s 1998 precedent in Bousley v. United States that makes it difficult for defendants to overturn convictions on the grounds that their actions were later deemed noncriminal unless they can demonstrate “actual innocence,” a significant procedural hurdle.

In opposition to motions to vacate by defendants such as Proud Boys members Nicholas Ochs and Nicholas DeCarlo, DOJ officials argue that those people should not be able to back out of their deals. Both accepted guilty plea deals to one count of violating 1512(c)(2), are serving their four-year prison sentences, and are scheduled to be released in September 2025.

Ongoing Fischer evaluation matters for Trump’s case

The most high-profile defendant facing the felony obstruction charge is Trump, who recently saw his four-count criminal trial in Washington land back into the hands of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan after an eight-month delay spurred by his bid to have the Supreme Court find he enjoys presidential immunity.

Special counsel Jack Smith has said he will still defend the obstruction counts in Trump’s case over the former president’s “efforts to use fraudulent electoral certifications rather than genuine ones at the Joint Session,” according to a brief filed in April, two months before the Fischer decision.

Additionally, legal experts concede that the Supreme Court did not preclude federal prosecutors from applying the 1512(c)(2) statute as it was originally intended, such as prosecuting acts of evidence tampering such as the document shredding in the Enron accounting scandal.

“If, in highly unusual cases, [prosecutors] have evidence of intention to destroy or manufacture evidence or intimidate witnesses, those cases could survive the Fischer ruling,” McCarthy told the Washington Examiner.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Nevertheless, whether the obstruction charges are sustained in the Trump indictment may depend on whether the case itself survives, given that Trump would likely dismiss it entirely if he wins the Nov. 5 presidential election.

The Washington Examiner did not receive a response from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia when reached for contact.

2024-08-16 08:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3122632%2Fdoj-dropping-most-jan-6-obstruction-charges%2F?w=600&h=450, Multiple defendants from the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol who faced charges for obstructing Congress are seeing those charges dropped, according to a Washington Examiner review of court records, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Justice Department had applied the charge too broadly. In the case known as Fischer v. United,

Multiple defendants from the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol who faced charges for obstructing Congress are seeing those charges dropped, according to a Washington Examiner review of court records, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Justice Department had applied the charge too broadly.

In the case known as Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Joe Biden’s Justice Department wrongfully levied a felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding against Jan. 6 defendants, finding the statute only applies to conduct such as manipulation or destruction of documents. Ever since then, defendants who have yet to be tried or sentenced are seeing a consistent windfall from that decision.

Prominent Jan. 6 attorney speaks out

Bill Shipley, a prominent defense attorney who has represented dozens of Capitol riot defendants, told the Washington Examiner that prosecutors have been dropping the obstruction charge, known as 1512(c)(2), “and offering pleas to other charges.”

The Washington Examiner first reported on this emerging pattern in mid-July, just weeks after the Fischer ruling, but since then, the rate of cases affected by the high court’s decision “has become more than just a trickle,” Shipley said. On Wednesday, the attorney posted to X that the government is now “doing it in every case that is about to go to trial.”

There are 259 people, around 2% of all Jan. 6 defendants, who have been charged with the felony obstruction count, according to the DOJ, with around 133 having already been sentenced. Seventeen of the 133 convicted of this charge and no other felony are serving incarceration sentences.

Now, up to 126 defendants awaiting sentencing or pending trial could stand to benefit from the recent pattern of dropped obstruction charges, whether they’re paying thousands of dollars by the hour for an attorney or if they’re bold enough to represent themselves in court.

“I’m not here claiming that great lawyering by me brought that about,” Shipley wrote on X in reference to the flow of 1512(c)(2) counts dropped.

The proof is in the case filings

The case of Deborah Lynn Lee, a 58-year-old woman from northeastern Pennsylvania who recently saw her felony obstruction charge dropped on her birthday, Aug. 2, is a prime example of the DOJ’s retreat.

Lee still faces misdemeanor counts of entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. Altogether, she could face up to three years in prison and fines up to $210,000, though it’s still a far cry from the possible 23 years in prison and $460,000 in fines she faced if she had not convinced prosecutors to drop the obstruction count.

Notably, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Diamond provided no explanation for the dismissal of the felony count.

Lee’s trial was slated for Sept. 4, but her attorney, Shipley, insists that she can opt for a magistrate judge for her trial now that it is only a four-count misdemeanor case, meaning another new trial date will likely be set for her.

Another example recently unfolded in the case of Michael Pope, who traveled with his brother, William Pope, to the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6 in support of then-President Donald Trump’s protest against his election defeat. Prosecutors on Aug. 2 agreed to dismiss Michael Pope’s obstruction count, citing the “interest of justice and in order to clarify and simplify the issues to be resolved as a result of the trial of the defendant.”

William Pope is defending himself in his own case, and his judge has ordered prosecutors to provide their position on his obstruction charge before the next status conference on Aug. 23, a signal that he, too, could see this charge dropped.

The growing trend of dropped obstruction charges by no means suggests the affected defendants are completely off the hook for their alleged crimes, as not one defendant awaiting a trial or sentence is charged solely on the obstruction count. However, the pattern may suggest the DOJ is now more focused on the expediency of adjudicating pending cases while prosecutors continue to evaluate what to do with 1512(c)(2) cases moving forward.

In recent weeks, prosecutors within U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves’s office have written in court filings the government is evaluating its approach to 1512(c)(2) “carefully,” while sticking firmly to the notion that the Supreme Court did not “reject application” of the felony count to the riot.

“Rather, the Court explained that the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding—such as witness testimony or intangible information—or attempted to do so,” Graves’s office wrote in response to defendant Michael Oliveras, who is seeking to postpone his sentencing in light of Fischer.

Former federal prosecutor and National Review columnist Andy McCarthy told the Washington Examiner that he did not have first-hand knowledge of the DOJ’s handling of the cases with felony obstruction counts but said it “makes sense” that prosecutors have been dropping those counts.

“If a case is not scheduled for trial any time soon, the prosecutors can bide their time and try to negotiate some kind of guilty plea, knowing that, if negotiations fail, they can always dismiss the case down the road,” McCarthy said. “But if the case is already scheduled for trial, and the prosecutors believe they can’t win because of the Fischer decision, it’s not surprising that they’d drop those cases.”

What about defendants who have already been sentenced?

For defendants who have already pleaded guilty to obstruction felony counts or have already been sentenced, prosecutors are maintaining that those convictions should not be vacated.

According to DOJ sentencing data, at least 35 people have already pleaded guilty to the obstruction count or other charges they faced.

Prosecutors cite the Supreme Court’s 1998 precedent in Bousley v. United States that makes it difficult for defendants to overturn convictions on the grounds that their actions were later deemed noncriminal unless they can demonstrate “actual innocence,” a significant procedural hurdle.

In opposition to motions to vacate by defendants such as Proud Boys members Nicholas Ochs and Nicholas DeCarlo, DOJ officials argue that those people should not be able to back out of their deals. Both accepted guilty plea deals to one count of violating 1512(c)(2), are serving their four-year prison sentences, and are scheduled to be released in September 2025.

Ongoing Fischer evaluation matters for Trump’s case

The most high-profile defendant facing the felony obstruction charge is Trump, who recently saw his four-count criminal trial in Washington land back into the hands of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan after an eight-month delay spurred by his bid to have the Supreme Court find he enjoys presidential immunity.

Special counsel Jack Smith has said he will still defend the obstruction counts in Trump’s case over the former president’s “efforts to use fraudulent electoral certifications rather than genuine ones at the Joint Session,” according to a brief filed in April, two months before the Fischer decision.

Additionally, legal experts concede that the Supreme Court did not preclude federal prosecutors from applying the 1512(c)(2) statute as it was originally intended, such as prosecuting acts of evidence tampering such as the document shredding in the Enron accounting scandal.

“If, in highly unusual cases, [prosecutors] have evidence of intention to destroy or manufacture evidence or intimidate witnesses, those cases could survive the Fischer ruling,” McCarthy told the Washington Examiner.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Nevertheless, whether the obstruction charges are sustained in the Trump indictment may depend on whether the case itself survives, given that Trump would likely dismiss it entirely if he wins the Nov. 5 presidential election.

The Washington Examiner did not receive a response from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia when reached for contact.

, Multiple defendants from the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol who faced charges for obstructing Congress are seeing those charges dropped, according to a Washington Examiner review of court records, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Justice Department had applied the charge too broadly. In the case known as Fischer v. United States , the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Joe Biden’s Justice Department wrongfully levied a felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding against Jan. 6 defendants, finding the statute only applies to conduct such as manipulation or destruction of documents. Ever since then, defendants who have yet to be tried or sentenced are seeing a consistent windfall from that decision. Violent protesters loyal to President Donald Trump storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/John Minchillo) Prominent Jan. 6 attorney speaks out Bill Shipley, a prominent defense attorney who has represented dozens of Capitol riot defendants, told the Washington Examiner that prosecutors have been dropping the obstruction charge, known as 1512(c)(2), “and offering pleas to other charges.” The Washington Examiner first reported on this emerging pattern in mid-July, just weeks after the Fischer ruling, but since then, the rate of cases affected by the high court’s decision “has become more than just a trickle,” Shipley said. On Wednesday, the attorney posted to X that the government is now “doing it in every case that is about to go to trial.” There are 259 people, around 2% of all Jan. 6 defendants, who have been charged with the felony obstruction count, according to the DOJ, with around 133 having already been sentenced. Seventeen of the 133 convicted of this charge and no other felony are serving incarceration sentences. Now, up to 126 defendants awaiting sentencing or pending trial could stand to benefit from the recent pattern of dropped obstruction charges, whether they’re paying thousands of dollars by the hour for an attorney or if they’re bold enough to represent themselves in court. “I’m not here claiming that great lawyering by me brought that about,” Shipley wrote on X in reference to the flow of 1512(c)(2) counts dropped. The proof is in the case filings The case of Deborah Lynn Lee, a 58-year-old woman from northeastern Pennsylvania who recently saw her felony obstruction charge dropped on her birthday, Aug. 2, is a prime example of the DOJ’s retreat. Lee still faces misdemeanor counts of entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. Altogether, she could face up to three years in prison and fines up to $210,000, though it’s still a far cry from the possible 23 years in prison and $460,000 in fines she faced if she had not convinced prosecutors to drop the obstruction count. Notably, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Diamond provided no explanation for the dismissal of the felony count. Lee’s trial was slated for Sept. 4, but her attorney, Shipley, insists that she can opt for a magistrate judge for her trial now that it is only a four-count misdemeanor case, meaning another new trial date will likely be set for her. Another example recently unfolded in the case of Michael Pope, who traveled with his brother, William Pope, to the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6 in support of then-President Donald Trump’s protest against his election defeat. Prosecutors on Aug. 2 agreed to dismiss Michael Pope’s obstruction count, citing the “interest of justice and in order to clarify and simplify the issues to be resolved as a result of the trial of the defendant.” William Pope is defending himself in his own case, and his judge has ordered prosecutors to provide their position on his obstruction charge before the next status conference on Aug. 23, a signal that he, too, could see this charge dropped. The growing trend of dropped obstruction charges by no means suggests the affected defendants are completely off the hook for their alleged crimes, as not one defendant awaiting a trial or sentence is charged solely on the obstruction count. However, the pattern may suggest the DOJ is now more focused on the expediency of adjudicating pending cases while prosecutors continue to evaluate what to do with 1512(c)(2) cases moving forward. In recent weeks, prosecutors within U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves’s office have written in court filings the government is evaluating its approach to 1512(c)(2) “carefully,” while sticking firmly to the notion that the Supreme Court did not “reject application” of the felony count to the riot. “Rather, the Court explained that the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding—such as witness testimony or intangible information—or attempted to do so,” Graves’s office wrote in response to defendant Michael Oliveras, who is seeking to postpone his sentencing in light of Fischer. Former federal prosecutor and National Review columnist Andy McCarthy told the Washington Examiner that he did not have first-hand knowledge of the DOJ’s handling of the cases with felony obstruction counts but said it “makes sense” that prosecutors have been dropping those counts. “If a case is not scheduled for trial any time soon, the prosecutors can bide their time and try to negotiate some kind of guilty plea, knowing that, if negotiations fail, they can always dismiss the case down the road,” McCarthy said. “But if the case is already scheduled for trial, and the prosecutors believe they can’t win because of the Fischer decision, it’s not surprising that they’d drop those cases.” What about defendants who have already been sentenced? For defendants who have already pleaded guilty to obstruction felony counts or have already been sentenced, prosecutors are maintaining that those convictions should not be vacated. According to DOJ sentencing data, at least 35 people have already pleaded guilty to the obstruction count or other charges they faced. Prosecutors cite the Supreme Court’s 1998 precedent in Bousley v. United States that makes it difficult for defendants to overturn convictions on the grounds that their actions were later deemed noncriminal unless they can demonstrate “actual innocence,” a significant procedural hurdle. In opposition to motions to vacate by defendants such as Proud Boys members Nicholas Ochs and Nicholas DeCarlo, DOJ officials argue that those people should not be able to back out of their deals. Both accepted guilty plea deals to one count of violating 1512(c)(2), are serving their four-year prison sentences, and are scheduled to be released in September 2025. Ongoing Fischer evaluation matters for Trump’s case The most high-profile defendant facing the felony obstruction charge is Trump, who recently saw his four-count criminal trial in Washington land back into the hands of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan after an eight-month delay spurred by his bid to have the Supreme Court find he enjoys presidential immunity. Special counsel Jack Smith has said he will still defend the obstruction counts in Trump’s case over the former president’s “efforts to use fraudulent electoral certifications rather than genuine ones at the Joint Session,” according to a brief filed in April, two months before the Fischer decision. Additionally, legal experts concede that the Supreme Court did not preclude federal prosecutors from applying the 1512(c)(2) statute as it was originally intended, such as prosecuting acts of evidence tampering such as the document shredding in the Enron accounting scandal. “If, in highly unusual cases, [prosecutors] have evidence of intention to destroy or manufacture evidence or intimidate witnesses, those cases could survive the Fischer ruling,” McCarthy told the Washington Examiner. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Nevertheless, whether the obstruction charges are sustained in the Trump indictment may depend on whether the case itself survives, given that Trump would likely dismiss it entirely if he wins the Nov. 5 presidential election. The Washington Examiner did not receive a response from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia when reached for contact., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP21238576240920.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that fetuses can be described as an “unborn human being” in pamphlets informing voters before they decide whether to add a right to an abortion to the state’s constitution.

The state’s top court ruled that the phrase, which describes what fetuses become after they have developed in a mother’s womb, “substantially complies” with the impartiality requirement under Arizona law.

A full decision is said to be on the way, according to the brief order from the seven-member bench. Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer and Justice James Beene dissented.

Arizona for Abortion Access, the campaign that is backing the ballot initiative, sued to change the language in information pamphlets to merely say “fetus,” arguing the term was more impartial.

“We are deeply disappointed in this ruling, but will not be deterred from doing everything in our power to communicate to voters the truth of the Arizona Abortion Access Act,” the group wrote in a statement, calling on residents to vote “YES” on the measure during the November general election.

Abortions in Arizona are currently subject to a 15-week ban due to a law passed by Republican lawmakers in 2022 following the Supreme Court decision that allowed states to create gestational limits on such procedures, overturning nearly five decades of precedent under Roe v. Wade.

The law provides exceptions for the life of the mother but not for rape or incest.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The ballot measure, if approved, would amend the state constitution to allow abortions up to around 23 or 24 weeks after conception and would restrict the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would prohibit access to the procedure.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has made reproductive rights a central point of her campaign, and a recent HighGround Public Affairs survey shows her about 3 percentage points ahead of former President Donald Trump, with Harris receiving 44.4% of the support and Trump receiving 41.6%.

2024-08-14 23:30:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3122119%2Farizona-supreme-court-rules-fetuses-called-unborn-human-ballot-initiative%2F?w=600&h=450, The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that fetuses can be described as an “unborn human being” in pamphlets informing voters before they decide whether to add a right to an abortion to the state’s constitution. The state’s top court ruled that the phrase, which describes what fetuses become after they have developed in a mother’s,

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that fetuses can be described as an “unborn human being” in pamphlets informing voters before they decide whether to add a right to an abortion to the state’s constitution.

The state’s top court ruled that the phrase, which describes what fetuses become after they have developed in a mother’s womb, “substantially complies” with the impartiality requirement under Arizona law.

A full decision is said to be on the way, according to the brief order from the seven-member bench. Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer and Justice James Beene dissented.

Arizona for Abortion Access, the campaign that is backing the ballot initiative, sued to change the language in information pamphlets to merely say “fetus,” arguing the term was more impartial.

“We are deeply disappointed in this ruling, but will not be deterred from doing everything in our power to communicate to voters the truth of the Arizona Abortion Access Act,” the group wrote in a statement, calling on residents to vote “YES” on the measure during the November general election.

Abortions in Arizona are currently subject to a 15-week ban due to a law passed by Republican lawmakers in 2022 following the Supreme Court decision that allowed states to create gestational limits on such procedures, overturning nearly five decades of precedent under Roe v. Wade.

The law provides exceptions for the life of the mother but not for rape or incest.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The ballot measure, if approved, would amend the state constitution to allow abortions up to around 23 or 24 weeks after conception and would restrict the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would prohibit access to the procedure.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has made reproductive rights a central point of her campaign, and a recent HighGround Public Affairs survey shows her about 3 percentage points ahead of former President Donald Trump, with Harris receiving 44.4% of the support and Trump receiving 41.6%.

, The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that fetuses can be described as an “unborn human being” in pamphlets informing voters before they decide whether to add a right to an abortion to the state’s constitution. The state’s top court ruled that the phrase, which describes what fetuses become after they have developed in a mother’s womb, “substantially complies” with the impartiality requirement under Arizona law. Anti-abortion protesters gather for a news conference after Arizona abortion-rights supporters deliver over 800,000 petition signatures to the capitol to get abortion rights on the November general election ballot Wednesday, July 3, 2024, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin) A full decision is said to be on the way, according to the brief order from the seven-member bench. Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer and Justice James Beene dissented. Arizona for Abortion Access, the campaign that is backing the ballot initiative, sued to change the language in information pamphlets to merely say “fetus,” arguing the term was more impartial. BREAKING NEWS Read our response to the Arizona Supreme Court reversing the trial court’s well-reasoned ruling. pic.twitter.com/4gl8BVcD1y — Arizona for Abortion Access (@azforaccess) August 14, 2024 “We are deeply disappointed in this ruling, but will not be deterred from doing everything in our power to communicate to voters the truth of the Arizona Abortion Access Act,” the group wrote in a statement, calling on residents to vote “YES” on the measure during the November general election. Abortions in Arizona are currently subject to a 15-week ban due to a law passed by Republican lawmakers in 2022 following the Supreme Court decision that allowed states to create gestational limits on such procedures, overturning nearly five decades of precedent under Roe v. Wade. The law provides exceptions for the life of the mother but not for rape or incest. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The ballot measure, if approved, would amend the state constitution to allow abortions up to around 23 or 24 weeks after conception and would restrict the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would prohibit access to the procedure. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has made reproductive rights a central point of her campaign, and a recent HighGround Public Affairs survey shows her about 3 percentage points ahead of former President Donald Trump, with Harris receiving 44.4% of the support and Trump receiving 41.6%., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AP24226071845198.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

Kansas and a coalition of several Republican-led states joined a lawsuit to block the Biden administration from using taxpayer-funded federal agencies to register new voters and decried it an “unlawful” overreach that could result in millions of new Democratic registrants.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, claims the Biden administration’s 2021 Executive Order 14019, which mandates federal agencies to engage in voter registration activities, oversteps the authority granted to the executive branch and infringes on state sovereignty.

“Just as it’s illegal for a Democrat administration to do this, it would be illegal for a Republican administration to do this,” Republican Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach told the Washington Examiner. “We have a system where the government itself must follow the law, and it doesn’t matter who’s sitting in the White House.”

The plaintiffs argue that this executive order, dubbed “Bidenbucks” by its critics, transforms federal agencies into de facto voter registration organizations, a role that, according to the lawsuit, should be reserved for states. They assert that this federal overreach undermines the integrity of state-run voter registration systems and threatens the balance of power between state and federal governments.

Based on analysis from the left-wing think tank Demos, which backs the order, the initiative could lead to “approximately 3 million new or updated voter registrations per year.”

This surge in voter registrations could potentially swing the election in favor of the Democrats in what is expected to be a closely contested race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

The complaint argues that the executive order may lead to more Democratic registrants by citing the historically left-leaning nature of federal agencies, which is evident from the majority of federal employees’ political donations going to Democratic candidates in past elections. This suggests that the federal bureaucracy, responsible for implementing the order, could favor the Democratic Party, according to the complaint.

But time is of the essence for this challenge, as there are only about three weeks left before early voting in some states begins, meaning much of the potential damage caused by “Bidenbucks” may already be done.

“If one of the courts were to issue a preliminary injunction, it might have some impact on this upcoming election in November,” Kobach said, contending that if their lawsuit was successful, it would more likely affect future elections rather than 2024.

As the former secretary of state for eight years in the Sunflower State, Kobach said he feels confident his state and others are right to challenge Biden’s get-out-the-vote effort, which he said “also motivated me to be part of this lawsuit.”

The case, known as Montana v. Biden, seeks to have the district court immediately declare the executive order unconstitutional and to vacate and enjoin all agency actions implementing it. In addition to Kansas and Montana, other states that have joined in the complaint include Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota.

The problems caused by the Biden executive order have left visible impacts previously reported on by the Washington Examiner earlier this summer. For example, one participating site for the get-out-the-vote initiative was the Community Health Center of Southeast Kansas, which is the largest federally qualified health center in the state that services 70,000 people, including in Oklahoma.

Footage reviewed by the Washington Examiner showed examples in which personnel at the health center touted their work turning out voters who ultimately rejected a 2022 anti-abortion referendum.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The Montana case also builds on a similar petition by Pennsylvania state lawmakers to the Supreme Court in April, asking the justices if they have the right to challenge the executive order on the basis that it serves as an incursion on legislative duty. The Supreme Court has yet to take up that challenge and signaled it would not consider the appeal until late September.

On Wednesday, the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree, who is an appointee of former President Barack Obama. It’s not immediately clear whether and when the court will act on the request to enjoin the “Bidenbucks” initiative.

2024-08-14 22:51:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3121907%2Fkansas-joins-multistate-challenge-bidenbucks-voter-registration-scheme%2F?w=600&h=450, Kansas and a coalition of several Republican-led states joined a lawsuit to block the Biden administration from using taxpayer-funded federal agencies to register new voters and decried it an “unlawful” overreach that could result in millions of new Democratic registrants. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, claims the,

Kansas and a coalition of several Republican-led states joined a lawsuit to block the Biden administration from using taxpayer-funded federal agencies to register new voters and decried it an “unlawful” overreach that could result in millions of new Democratic registrants.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, claims the Biden administration’s 2021 Executive Order 14019, which mandates federal agencies to engage in voter registration activities, oversteps the authority granted to the executive branch and infringes on state sovereignty.

“Just as it’s illegal for a Democrat administration to do this, it would be illegal for a Republican administration to do this,” Republican Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach told the Washington Examiner. “We have a system where the government itself must follow the law, and it doesn’t matter who’s sitting in the White House.”

The plaintiffs argue that this executive order, dubbed “Bidenbucks” by its critics, transforms federal agencies into de facto voter registration organizations, a role that, according to the lawsuit, should be reserved for states. They assert that this federal overreach undermines the integrity of state-run voter registration systems and threatens the balance of power between state and federal governments.

Based on analysis from the left-wing think tank Demos, which backs the order, the initiative could lead to “approximately 3 million new or updated voter registrations per year.”

This surge in voter registrations could potentially swing the election in favor of the Democrats in what is expected to be a closely contested race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

The complaint argues that the executive order may lead to more Democratic registrants by citing the historically left-leaning nature of federal agencies, which is evident from the majority of federal employees’ political donations going to Democratic candidates in past elections. This suggests that the federal bureaucracy, responsible for implementing the order, could favor the Democratic Party, according to the complaint.

But time is of the essence for this challenge, as there are only about three weeks left before early voting in some states begins, meaning much of the potential damage caused by “Bidenbucks” may already be done.

“If one of the courts were to issue a preliminary injunction, it might have some impact on this upcoming election in November,” Kobach said, contending that if their lawsuit was successful, it would more likely affect future elections rather than 2024.

As the former secretary of state for eight years in the Sunflower State, Kobach said he feels confident his state and others are right to challenge Biden’s get-out-the-vote effort, which he said “also motivated me to be part of this lawsuit.”

The case, known as Montana v. Biden, seeks to have the district court immediately declare the executive order unconstitutional and to vacate and enjoin all agency actions implementing it. In addition to Kansas and Montana, other states that have joined in the complaint include Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota.

The problems caused by the Biden executive order have left visible impacts previously reported on by the Washington Examiner earlier this summer. For example, one participating site for the get-out-the-vote initiative was the Community Health Center of Southeast Kansas, which is the largest federally qualified health center in the state that services 70,000 people, including in Oklahoma.

Footage reviewed by the Washington Examiner showed examples in which personnel at the health center touted their work turning out voters who ultimately rejected a 2022 anti-abortion referendum.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The Montana case also builds on a similar petition by Pennsylvania state lawmakers to the Supreme Court in April, asking the justices if they have the right to challenge the executive order on the basis that it serves as an incursion on legislative duty. The Supreme Court has yet to take up that challenge and signaled it would not consider the appeal until late September.

On Wednesday, the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree, who is an appointee of former President Barack Obama. It’s not immediately clear whether and when the court will act on the request to enjoin the “Bidenbucks” initiative.

, Kansas and a coalition of several Republican-led states joined a lawsuit to block the Biden administration from using taxpayer-funded federal agencies to register new voters and decried it an “unlawful” overreach that could result in millions of new Democratic registrants. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, claims the Biden administration’s 2021 Executive Order 14019, which mandates federal agencies to engage in voter registration activities, oversteps the authority granted to the executive branch and infringes on state sovereignty. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach answers questions from reporters during a news conference outside his office, May 1, 2023, in Topeka, Kansas. (AP Photo/John Hanna, File) “Just as it’s illegal for a Democrat administration to do this, it would be illegal for a Republican administration to do this,” Republican Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach told the Washington Examiner. “We have a system where the government itself must follow the law, and it doesn’t matter who’s sitting in the White House.” The plaintiffs argue that this executive order, dubbed “Bidenbucks” by its critics, transforms federal agencies into de facto voter registration organizations, a role that, according to the lawsuit, should be reserved for states. They assert that this federal overreach undermines the integrity of state-run voter registration systems and threatens the balance of power between state and federal governments. Based on analysis from the left-wing think tank Demos, which backs the order, the initiative could lead to “approximately 3 million new or updated voter registrations per year.” This surge in voter registrations could potentially swing the election in favor of the Democrats in what is expected to be a closely contested race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The complaint argues that the executive order may lead to more Democratic registrants by citing the historically left-leaning nature of federal agencies, which is evident from the majority of federal employees’ political donations going to Democratic candidates in past elections. This suggests that the federal bureaucracy, responsible for implementing the order, could favor the Democratic Party, according to the complaint. But time is of the essence for this challenge, as there are only about three weeks left before early voting in some states begins, meaning much of the potential damage caused by “Bidenbucks” may already be done. “If one of the courts were to issue a preliminary injunction, it might have some impact on this upcoming election in November,” Kobach said, contending that if their lawsuit was successful, it would more likely affect future elections rather than 2024. As the former secretary of state for eight years in the Sunflower State, Kobach said he feels confident his state and others are right to challenge Biden’s get-out-the-vote effort, which he said “also motivated me to be part of this lawsuit.” The case, known as Montana v. Biden , seeks to have the district court immediately declare the executive order unconstitutional and to vacate and enjoin all agency actions implementing it. In addition to Kansas and Montana, other states that have joined in the complaint include Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota. The problems caused by the Biden executive order have left visible impacts previously reported on by the Washington Examiner earlier this summer. For example, one participating site for the get-out-the-vote initiative was the Community Health Center of Southeast Kansas, which is the largest federally qualified health center in the state that services 70,000 people, including in Oklahoma. Footage reviewed by the Washington Examiner showed examples in which personnel at the health center touted their work turning out voters who ultimately rejected a 2022 anti-abortion referendum. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The Montana case also builds on a similar petition by Pennsylvania state lawmakers to the Supreme Court in April, asking the justices if they have the right to challenge the executive order on the basis that it serves as an incursion on legislative duty. The Supreme Court has yet to take up that challenge and signaled it would not consider the appeal until late September. On Wednesday, the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree, who is an appointee of former President Barack Obama. It’s not immediately clear whether and when the court will act on the request to enjoin the “Bidenbucks” initiative., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AP24226719719922.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

President Joe Biden‘s Supreme Court reform proposals have elicited little response from the nine justices, though their past comments provide insight as to where they stand on some portions of his high court wish list.

Only one Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, has spoken out since Biden announced his sweeping ethics reform proposals. Gorsuch’s comments were kept to a minimum in light of the “political issue” during a presidential election year, consisting of a remark that he did not think it “would be helpful” to opine on the president’s plans at this time.

“And so I just say, be careful,” Gorsuch, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, told Fox News during an interview last weekend.

Biden’s Supreme Court reform agenda, laid out July 29, features proposals for a constitutional amendment to state a former president does not have immunity for crimes carried out in office, term limits for Supreme Court justices, and a “binding” code of conduct for the high court.

Although Gorsuch’s words did not prompt complaints from any lawmakers, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) pushed back last August when Justice Samuel Alito said during a Wall Street Journal interview that “No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”

Durbin accused Alito, an appointee of former President George Bush, of “opining” about the constitutionality of legislation that was being considered by the Senate, known as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, and called for the justice to “recuse himself in any future cases concerning legislation that regulates the court.”

The Democratic senator suggested Alito violated Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which states, “[a] judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”

Case Western Reserve Law School professor Jonathan Adler told the Washington Examiner this week that while it may be “wise” for justices to avoid expressing definitive opinions about what is or is not lawful, “I think it is valuable to have justices be part of the conversation about whether a given proposal is actually wise or workable.”

Adler also said Durbin’s statement “was political” and “had no legal merit,” noting that “no legislation has been passed, let alone a proceeding applying such a rule.”

But Alito is not the only high court justice to have opined about a hypothetical code of conduct that would be enforceable by parties outside of the Supreme Court. Before Gorsuch’s interview, Justice Elena Kagan was the latest to make such comments at a July 26 speech at a judicial conference in Sacramento.

Kagan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, acknowledged there are complexities in determining 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,” Kagan said days after news outlets reported that Biden was planning to announce reform proposals at the high court.

No lawmakers have accused Kagan of opining about pending legislation.

South Texas Law School professor Josh Blackman noted that Kagan’s remarks came before Biden’s July 29 reforms announcement and noted that Biden technically has not proposed any legislation.

Blackman said he believes Kagan was speaking about the “issues in the ether in the same way that Alito was.”

“There is no pending case, so I don’t see any need for recusal,” Blackman said.

Although legal experts say no current justices have crossed an ethical line by referencing the current controversy of judicial ethics, Durbin’s calls for Alito’s recusal last year underscore the difficult predicament the justices face as Biden uses his final days in office to call for sweeping reforms.

Calls for ethics reforms by Biden and top Democrats surround the reality that the current 6-3 majority on the high court of justices was appointed by Republican presidents. Last November, the justices finally drafted and published their own code of conduct, but Democrats such as Durbin complained that there was no enforcement mechanism to hold them accountable in the event of ethical lapses.

Many Democrats have accused the Supreme Court and its conservative justices, particularly Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, of undermining democracy by being partisan. In Thomas’s case, he went on several trips financed by his longtime friend and Republican donor Harlan Crow. For Alito, he went on a fishing trip in 2008 to Alaska on board the private plane of billionaire Paul Singer.

Republicans have countered by arguing that Democrats only seek change because they are in the minority and that there is no evidence of justices’ opinions being swayed by outside parties. Thomas and Alito have denied having any bias.

Before the justices announced their code of conduct last year, Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett announced she supports an ethics code, adding that “All nine justices are very committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct.”

One month later, the justices said though there has been no formal code, they have long abided by the same standards for lower court judges.

The new code, signed by all nine justices, states on its top page: “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”

Given the extreme unlikelihood that Congress will be able to pass legislation for a binding code of ethics, due to the division between Republicans and Democrats, it may come down to the high court to decide whether and how an ethical code should be enforced.

Although Kagan stressed in her recent speech that she was speaking only for herself, she noted that she proposed to Chief Justice John Roberts that he appoint a panel of judges to enforce the high court’s recent code of conduct.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Kagan said she trusts Roberts and that if he created “some sort of committee of highly respected judges with a great deal of experience and a reputation for fairness,” it would seem like a good solution.

The Washington Examiner contacted Durbin’s office and the Supreme Court.

2024-08-10 09:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2F3115709%2Fwhere-supreme-court-stand-bidens-ethics-reform-plan%2F?w=600&h=450, President Joe Biden‘s Supreme Court reform proposals have elicited little response from the nine justices, though their past comments provide insight as to where they stand on some portions of his high court wish list. Only one Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, has spoken out since Biden announced his sweeping ethics reform proposals. Gorsuch’s comments,

President Joe Biden‘s Supreme Court reform proposals have elicited little response from the nine justices, though their past comments provide insight as to where they stand on some portions of his high court wish list.

Only one Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, has spoken out since Biden announced his sweeping ethics reform proposals. Gorsuch’s comments were kept to a minimum in light of the “political issue” during a presidential election year, consisting of a remark that he did not think it “would be helpful” to opine on the president’s plans at this time.

“And so I just say, be careful,” Gorsuch, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, told Fox News during an interview last weekend.

Biden’s Supreme Court reform agenda, laid out July 29, features proposals for a constitutional amendment to state a former president does not have immunity for crimes carried out in office, term limits for Supreme Court justices, and a “binding” code of conduct for the high court.

Although Gorsuch’s words did not prompt complaints from any lawmakers, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) pushed back last August when Justice Samuel Alito said during a Wall Street Journal interview that “No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”

Durbin accused Alito, an appointee of former President George Bush, of “opining” about the constitutionality of legislation that was being considered by the Senate, known as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, and called for the justice to “recuse himself in any future cases concerning legislation that regulates the court.”

The Democratic senator suggested Alito violated Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which states, “[a] judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”

Case Western Reserve Law School professor Jonathan Adler told the Washington Examiner this week that while it may be “wise” for justices to avoid expressing definitive opinions about what is or is not lawful, “I think it is valuable to have justices be part of the conversation about whether a given proposal is actually wise or workable.”

Adler also said Durbin’s statement “was political” and “had no legal merit,” noting that “no legislation has been passed, let alone a proceeding applying such a rule.”

But Alito is not the only high court justice to have opined about a hypothetical code of conduct that would be enforceable by parties outside of the Supreme Court. Before Gorsuch’s interview, Justice Elena Kagan was the latest to make such comments at a July 26 speech at a judicial conference in Sacramento.

Kagan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, acknowledged there are complexities in determining 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,” Kagan said days after news outlets reported that Biden was planning to announce reform proposals at the high court.

No lawmakers have accused Kagan of opining about pending legislation.

South Texas Law School professor Josh Blackman noted that Kagan’s remarks came before Biden’s July 29 reforms announcement and noted that Biden technically has not proposed any legislation.

Blackman said he believes Kagan was speaking about the “issues in the ether in the same way that Alito was.”

“There is no pending case, so I don’t see any need for recusal,” Blackman said.

Although legal experts say no current justices have crossed an ethical line by referencing the current controversy of judicial ethics, Durbin’s calls for Alito’s recusal last year underscore the difficult predicament the justices face as Biden uses his final days in office to call for sweeping reforms.

Calls for ethics reforms by Biden and top Democrats surround the reality that the current 6-3 majority on the high court of justices was appointed by Republican presidents. Last November, the justices finally drafted and published their own code of conduct, but Democrats such as Durbin complained that there was no enforcement mechanism to hold them accountable in the event of ethical lapses.

Many Democrats have accused the Supreme Court and its conservative justices, particularly Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, of undermining democracy by being partisan. In Thomas’s case, he went on several trips financed by his longtime friend and Republican donor Harlan Crow. For Alito, he went on a fishing trip in 2008 to Alaska on board the private plane of billionaire Paul Singer.

Republicans have countered by arguing that Democrats only seek change because they are in the minority and that there is no evidence of justices’ opinions being swayed by outside parties. Thomas and Alito have denied having any bias.

Before the justices announced their code of conduct last year, Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett announced she supports an ethics code, adding that “All nine justices are very committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct.”

One month later, the justices said though there has been no formal code, they have long abided by the same standards for lower court judges.

The new code, signed by all nine justices, states on its top page: “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”

Given the extreme unlikelihood that Congress will be able to pass legislation for a binding code of ethics, due to the division between Republicans and Democrats, it may come down to the high court to decide whether and how an ethical code should be enforced.

Although Kagan stressed in her recent speech that she was speaking only for herself, she noted that she proposed to Chief Justice John Roberts that he appoint a panel of judges to enforce the high court’s recent code of conduct.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Kagan said she trusts Roberts and that if he created “some sort of committee of highly respected judges with a great deal of experience and a reputation for fairness,” it would seem like a good solution.

The Washington Examiner contacted Durbin’s office and the Supreme Court.

, President Joe Biden‘s Supreme Court reform proposals have elicited little response from the nine justices, though their past comments provide insight as to where they stand on some portions of his high court wish list. Only one Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, has spoken out since Biden announced his sweeping ethics reform proposals. Gorsuch’s comments were kept to a minimum in light of the “political issue” during a presidential election year, consisting of a remark that he did not think it “would be helpful” to opine on the president’s plans at this time. In this image provided by the Supreme Court, members of the Supreme Court pose for a photo during Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s investiture ceremony at the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, Sept. 30, 2022. From left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Elena Kagan and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Fred Schilling/U.S. Supreme Court via AP) “And so I just say, be careful,” Gorsuch, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, told Fox News during an interview last weekend. Biden’s Supreme Court reform agenda, laid out July 29, features proposals for a constitutional amendment to state a former president does not have immunity for crimes carried out in office, term limits for Supreme Court justices, and a “binding” code of conduct for the high court. Although Gorsuch’s words did not prompt complaints from any lawmakers, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) pushed back last August when Justice Samuel Alito said during a Wall Street Journal interview that “No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.” Durbin accused Alito, an appointee of former President George Bush, of “opining” about the constitutionality of legislation that was being considered by the Senate, known as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, and called for the justice to “recuse himself in any future cases concerning legislation that regulates the court.” The Democratic senator suggested Alito violated Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which states, “[a] judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” Case Western Reserve Law School professor Jonathan Adler told the Washington Examiner this week that while it may be “wise” for justices to avoid expressing definitive opinions about what is or is not lawful, “I think it is valuable to have justices be part of the conversation about whether a given proposal is actually wise or workable.” Adler also said Durbin’s statement “was political” and “had no legal merit,” noting that “no legislation has been passed, let alone a proceeding applying such a rule.” But Alito is not the only high court justice to have opined about a hypothetical code of conduct that would be enforceable by parties outside of the Supreme Court. Before Gorsuch’s interview, Justice Elena Kagan was the latest to make such comments at a July 26 speech at a judicial conference in Sacramento. Kagan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, acknowledged there are complexities in determining 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,” Kagan said days after news outlets reported that Biden was planning to announce reform proposals at the high court. No lawmakers have accused Kagan of opining about pending legislation. South Texas Law School professor Josh Blackman noted that Kagan’s remarks came before Biden’s July 29 reforms announcement and noted that Biden technically has not proposed any legislation. Blackman said he believes Kagan was speaking about the “issues in the ether in the same way that Alito was.” “There is no pending case, so I don’t see any need for recusal,” Blackman said. Although legal experts say no current justices have crossed an ethical line by referencing the current controversy of judicial ethics, Durbin’s calls for Alito’s recusal last year underscore the difficult predicament the justices face as Biden uses his final days in office to call for sweeping reforms. Calls for ethics reforms by Biden and top Democrats surround the reality that the current 6-3 majority on the high court of justices was appointed by Republican presidents. Last November, the justices finally drafted and published their own code of conduct, but Democrats such as Durbin complained that there was no enforcement mechanism to hold them accountable in the event of ethical lapses. Many Democrats have accused the Supreme Court and its conservative justices, particularly Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, of undermining democracy by being partisan. In Thomas’s case, he went on several trips financed by his longtime friend and Republican donor Harlan Crow. For Alito, he went on a fishing trip in 2008 to Alaska on board the private plane of billionaire Paul Singer. Republicans have countered by arguing that Democrats only seek change because they are in the minority and that there is no evidence of justices’ opinions being swayed by outside parties. Thomas and Alito have denied having any bias. Before the justices announced their code of conduct last year, Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett announced she supports an ethics code, adding that “All nine justices are very committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct.” One month later, the justices said though there has been no formal code, they have long abided by the same standards for lower court judges. The new code, signed by all nine justices, states on its top page: “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.” Given the extreme unlikelihood that Congress will be able to pass legislation for a binding code of ethics, due to the division between Republicans and Democrats, it may come down to the high court to decide whether and how an ethical code should be enforced. Although Kagan stressed in her recent speech that she was speaking only for herself, she noted that she proposed to Chief Justice John Roberts that he appoint a panel of judges to enforce the high court’s recent code of conduct. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Kagan said she trusts Roberts and that if he created “some sort of committee of highly respected judges with a great deal of experience and a reputation for fairness,” it would seem like a good solution. The Washington Examiner contacted Durbin’s office and the Supreme Court., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/supreme-court-justices.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

Fulton Country District Attorney Fani Willis wants to move forward with her 2020 election interference case against former President Donald Trump while a Georgia appeals court grapples over whether she should be disqualified as the lead prosecutor.

The racketeering case has been on hold since May, when the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to review Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling over an alleged conflict of interest between Willis and a former top prosecutor on the case, Nathan Wade. Willis told the appellate court this week that McAfee’s order allowing her to remain should not be second-guessed and that the standard for disqualification posited by the defense is a tall bar to clear.

“Having failed to adequately support their chosen theories or persuade the trial court on their central point, the Appellants still received the boon of the withdrawal of a special prosecutor,” Willis’s team wrote in a 96-page brief Monday.

McAfee’s ruling pertained to a complaint over the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade, whom she had appointed to assist with the Trump case. A co-defendant of Trump alerted McAfee in January to an alleged “improper” relationship the pair had forged in March 2022. This March, McAfee stopped short of ordering Willis to step down from the case but said either she or Wade had to resign for the case to move forward.

Trump’s defense attorney claimed that the relationship led to improper financial gains for Wade and Willis, creating a conflict of interest that warranted disqualification of the district attorney’s office. Wade and Willis denied any wrongdoing in court, while both have offered conflicting responses about when their relationship ended. Willis has said the relationship ended sometime between June and August of 2023, and Wade believes it ended sometime between February and April last year.

Willis, an elected Democrat, has adamantly defended her conduct in public, including in a speech she gave on Martin Luther King Jr. weekend at Big Bethel AME Church.

“How come, God, the same Black man I hired was acceptable when a Republican in another county hired him and paid him twice the rate?” she asked to a crowd at the church. “Why is the white male Republican’s judgment good enough, but the Black female Democrat’s not?”

In a statement posted to X, Trump attorney Steve Sadow argued Thursday evening that Willis’s office fails to explain “why DA Willis engaged in the misconduct,” adding that she “deliberately plays the race card whenever she can.”

“Clearly, Willis’ violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct are calculated to heighten public condemnation of the wrongfully accused defendants,” Sadow added.

McAfee determined that while the relationship created an “appearance of impropriety,” it did not result in an actual conflict of interest. Wade resigned shortly after the ruling, and the case was allowed to continue. The defense has appealed, seeking to have Willis removed and the indictment dismissed.

The appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for December, making it unlikely that the case will be resolved before the presidential election between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump and 18 co-defendants were accused of conspiring to form a criminal enterprise to overturn his Georgia election defeat against President Joe Biden. The former president and 14 others have pleaded not guilty, while four others in the case have taken plea deals.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Separately, the Republican-led Georgia state Senate special committee investigating Willis is expected to hear testimony Friday from two attorneys and one GOP state representative. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether any legislative action is needed to restore public confidence in the district attorney’s office.

Willis has said she will not appear before the committee, arguing it is “unlawful” and that she has “not broken any law.”

2024-08-09 16:20:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3116489%2Fwillis-asks-court-keep-her-on-trump-rico-case%2F?w=600&h=450, Fulton Country District Attorney Fani Willis wants to move forward with her 2020 election interference case against former President Donald Trump while a Georgia appeals court grapples over whether she should be disqualified as the lead prosecutor. The racketeering case has been on hold since May, when the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to review,

Fulton Country District Attorney Fani Willis wants to move forward with her 2020 election interference case against former President Donald Trump while a Georgia appeals court grapples over whether she should be disqualified as the lead prosecutor.

The racketeering case has been on hold since May, when the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to review Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling over an alleged conflict of interest between Willis and a former top prosecutor on the case, Nathan Wade. Willis told the appellate court this week that McAfee’s order allowing her to remain should not be second-guessed and that the standard for disqualification posited by the defense is a tall bar to clear.

“Having failed to adequately support their chosen theories or persuade the trial court on their central point, the Appellants still received the boon of the withdrawal of a special prosecutor,” Willis’s team wrote in a 96-page brief Monday.

McAfee’s ruling pertained to a complaint over the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade, whom she had appointed to assist with the Trump case. A co-defendant of Trump alerted McAfee in January to an alleged “improper” relationship the pair had forged in March 2022. This March, McAfee stopped short of ordering Willis to step down from the case but said either she or Wade had to resign for the case to move forward.

Trump’s defense attorney claimed that the relationship led to improper financial gains for Wade and Willis, creating a conflict of interest that warranted disqualification of the district attorney’s office. Wade and Willis denied any wrongdoing in court, while both have offered conflicting responses about when their relationship ended. Willis has said the relationship ended sometime between June and August of 2023, and Wade believes it ended sometime between February and April last year.

Willis, an elected Democrat, has adamantly defended her conduct in public, including in a speech she gave on Martin Luther King Jr. weekend at Big Bethel AME Church.

“How come, God, the same Black man I hired was acceptable when a Republican in another county hired him and paid him twice the rate?” she asked to a crowd at the church. “Why is the white male Republican’s judgment good enough, but the Black female Democrat’s not?”

In a statement posted to X, Trump attorney Steve Sadow argued Thursday evening that Willis’s office fails to explain “why DA Willis engaged in the misconduct,” adding that she “deliberately plays the race card whenever she can.”

“Clearly, Willis’ violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct are calculated to heighten public condemnation of the wrongfully accused defendants,” Sadow added.

McAfee determined that while the relationship created an “appearance of impropriety,” it did not result in an actual conflict of interest. Wade resigned shortly after the ruling, and the case was allowed to continue. The defense has appealed, seeking to have Willis removed and the indictment dismissed.

The appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for December, making it unlikely that the case will be resolved before the presidential election between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump and 18 co-defendants were accused of conspiring to form a criminal enterprise to overturn his Georgia election defeat against President Joe Biden. The former president and 14 others have pleaded not guilty, while four others in the case have taken plea deals.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Separately, the Republican-led Georgia state Senate special committee investigating Willis is expected to hear testimony Friday from two attorneys and one GOP state representative. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether any legislative action is needed to restore public confidence in the district attorney’s office.

Willis has said she will not appear before the committee, arguing it is “unlawful” and that she has “not broken any law.”

, Fulton Country District Attorney Fani Willis wants to move forward with her 2020 election interference case against former President Donald Trump while a Georgia appeals court grapples over whether she should be disqualified as the lead prosecutor. The racketeering case has been on hold since May, when the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to review Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling over an alleged conflict of interest between Willis and a former top prosecutor on the case, Nathan Wade. Willis told the appellate court this week that McAfee’s order allowing her to remain should not be second-guessed and that the standard for disqualification posited by the defense is a tall bar to clear. Nathan Wade, right, defended his workplace relationship with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, left. (AP Photos) “Having failed to adequately support their chosen theories or persuade the trial court on their central point, the Appellants still received the boon of the withdrawal of a special prosecutor,” Willis’s team wrote in a 96-page brief Monday. McAfee’s ruling pertained to a complaint over the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade, whom she had appointed to assist with the Trump case. A co-defendant of Trump alerted McAfee in January to an alleged “improper” relationship the pair had forged in March 2022. This March, McAfee stopped short of ordering Willis to step down from the case but said either she or Wade had to resign for the case to move forward. Trump’s defense attorney claimed that the relationship led to improper financial gains for Wade and Willis, creating a conflict of interest that warranted disqualification of the district attorney’s office. Wade and Willis denied any wrongdoing in court, while both have offered conflicting responses about when their relationship ended. Willis has said the relationship ended sometime between June and August of 2023, and Wade believes it ended sometime between February and April last year. Willis, an elected Democrat, has adamantly defended her conduct in public, including in a speech she gave on Martin Luther King Jr. weekend at Big Bethel AME Church. “How come, God, the same Black man I hired was acceptable when a Republican in another county hired him and paid him twice the rate?” she asked to a crowd at the church. “Why is the white male Republican’s judgment good enough, but the Black female Democrat’s not?” In a statement posted to X, Trump attorney Steve Sadow argued Thursday evening that Willis’s office fails to explain “why DA Willis engaged in the misconduct,” adding that she “deliberately plays the race card whenever she can.” As lead counsel for President Trump, I told Law360 Pulse we disagree with all of the state’s arguments. “In its 90-plus page brief, not once does the prosecution attempt to explain why DA Willis engaged in the misconduct and deliberately plays the race card whenever she can.… pic.twitter.com/LXICp81lfK — Steve Sadow (@stevesadow) August 8, 2024 “Clearly, Willis’ violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct are calculated to heighten public condemnation of the wrongfully accused defendants,” Sadow added. In this photo combination of file images, Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee presides in court, left, while Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, right, looks on during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case on March 1, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photos/Alex Slitz) McAfee determined that while the relationship created an “appearance of impropriety,” it did not result in an actual conflict of interest. Wade resigned shortly after the ruling, and the case was allowed to continue. The defense has appealed, seeking to have Willis removed and the indictment dismissed. The appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for December, making it unlikely that the case will be resolved before the presidential election between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump and 18 co-defendants were accused of conspiring to form a criminal enterprise to overturn his Georgia election defeat against President Joe Biden. The former president and 14 others have pleaded not guilty, while four others in the case have taken plea deals. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Separately, the Republican-led Georgia state Senate special committee investigating Willis is expected to hear testimony Friday from two attorneys and one GOP state representative. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether any legislative action is needed to restore public confidence in the district attorney’s office. Willis has said she will not appear before the committee, arguing it is “unlawful” and that she has “not broken any law.”, , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MixCollage-23-May-2024-09-35-PM-4098.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

Former President Donald Trump‘s attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith requested a three-week delay to proceedings in the federal 2020 election subversion case, citing a need to further evaluate the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling.

“The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States … including through consultation with other Department of Justice components,” according to the joint status report filed to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Although Smith notes those “consultations are well underway,” the government has not finalized its position on the “most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision,” the special counsel’s office wrote, referring to the Supreme Court ruling that found former presidents are immune from prosecution for “official” acts taken while in office.

Trump’s counsel did not object to the government’s request for an extension.

Trump responded to the request Thursday evening in a statement, saying “It is clear that the Supreme Court’s historic decision on immunity demands and requires a complete and total dismissal of all the witch hunts.”

Smith’s office said they are available to proceed “any day after August 30” but noted Trump’s defense is not available on Sept. 6 and the week of Sept. 16, which is the week when New York Judge Juan Merchan is set to decide on whether the immunity ruling should result in overturning Trump’s criminal conviction in the separate criminal hush money case.

Both parties were initially expected to submit filings beginning on Friday after Chutkan ordered both parties to propose how to move forward following the Supreme Court’s decision on July 1. Chutkan has currently slated a hearing for next Friday to begin work on the case after an eight-month delay, which was spurred due to Trump’s immunity appeal effort.

The move by Smith to request a delay marks a stark change in the way he handled the case after it became the third of four criminal indictments against the former president last year. The special counsel often cited the need for a trial to occur before the election and emphasized the public’s need for a resolution. Chutkan had only regained jurisdiction last Friday after a monthlong wait for the case to return to her chambers.

Due to the compounding delays in the case, legal experts suggested the case wouldn’t get to trial before the November presidential election but that there could be a sort of “mini-trial,” or evidentiary hearings with live witness testimony ahead of the election. If Chutkan grants this request, it will likely further diminish the extent of pretrial adjudication ahead of the election.

The request also signals how Smith and the Justice Department are still grappling with the best route forward following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, which has become a point of marked criticism by President Joe Biden, who recently backed an effort by Congress to pass an amendment that would effectively undo the justices’ decision.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Smith has also faced setbacks in his separate federal indictment against Trump over his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving the Oval Office, with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida recently dismissing the case on the grounds that Smith was improperly appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. That decision is currently being appealed by Smith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, which encompasses his challenging of the election results after his defeat in November 2020. He pleaded not guilty to the charges last August.

2024-08-08 23:33:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3116139%2Ftrump-jack-smith-seek-three-week-delay-2020-election-case%2F?w=600&h=450, Former President Donald Trump‘s attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith requested a three-week delay to proceedings in the federal 2020 election subversion case, citing a need to further evaluate the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling. “The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump,

Former President Donald Trump‘s attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith requested a three-week delay to proceedings in the federal 2020 election subversion case, citing a need to further evaluate the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling.

“The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States … including through consultation with other Department of Justice components,” according to the joint status report filed to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Although Smith notes those “consultations are well underway,” the government has not finalized its position on the “most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision,” the special counsel’s office wrote, referring to the Supreme Court ruling that found former presidents are immune from prosecution for “official” acts taken while in office.

Trump’s counsel did not object to the government’s request for an extension.

Trump responded to the request Thursday evening in a statement, saying “It is clear that the Supreme Court’s historic decision on immunity demands and requires a complete and total dismissal of all the witch hunts.”

Smith’s office said they are available to proceed “any day after August 30” but noted Trump’s defense is not available on Sept. 6 and the week of Sept. 16, which is the week when New York Judge Juan Merchan is set to decide on whether the immunity ruling should result in overturning Trump’s criminal conviction in the separate criminal hush money case.

Both parties were initially expected to submit filings beginning on Friday after Chutkan ordered both parties to propose how to move forward following the Supreme Court’s decision on July 1. Chutkan has currently slated a hearing for next Friday to begin work on the case after an eight-month delay, which was spurred due to Trump’s immunity appeal effort.

The move by Smith to request a delay marks a stark change in the way he handled the case after it became the third of four criminal indictments against the former president last year. The special counsel often cited the need for a trial to occur before the election and emphasized the public’s need for a resolution. Chutkan had only regained jurisdiction last Friday after a monthlong wait for the case to return to her chambers.

Due to the compounding delays in the case, legal experts suggested the case wouldn’t get to trial before the November presidential election but that there could be a sort of “mini-trial,” or evidentiary hearings with live witness testimony ahead of the election. If Chutkan grants this request, it will likely further diminish the extent of pretrial adjudication ahead of the election.

The request also signals how Smith and the Justice Department are still grappling with the best route forward following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, which has become a point of marked criticism by President Joe Biden, who recently backed an effort by Congress to pass an amendment that would effectively undo the justices’ decision.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Smith has also faced setbacks in his separate federal indictment against Trump over his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving the Oval Office, with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida recently dismissing the case on the grounds that Smith was improperly appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. That decision is currently being appealed by Smith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, which encompasses his challenging of the election results after his defeat in November 2020. He pleaded not guilty to the charges last August.

, Former President Donald Trump‘s attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith requested a three-week delay to proceedings in the federal 2020 election subversion case, citing a need to further evaluate the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling. “The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States … including through consultation with other Department of Justice components,” according to the joint status report filed to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Jack Smith and Donald Trump. (AP Photos) Although Smith notes those “consultations are well underway,” the government has not finalized its position on the “most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision,” the special counsel’s office wrote, referring to the Supreme Court ruling that found former presidents are immune from prosecution for “official” acts taken while in office. Trump’s counsel did not object to the government’s request for an extension. Trump responded to the request Thursday evening in a statement, saying “It is clear that the Supreme Court’s historic decision on immunity demands and requires a complete and total dismissal of all the witch hunts.” Smith’s office said they are available to proceed “any day after August 30” but noted Trump’s defense is not available on Sept. 6 and the week of Sept. 16, which is the week when New York Judge Juan Merchan is set to decide on whether the immunity ruling should result in overturning Trump’s criminal conviction in the separate criminal hush money case. Both parties were initially expected to submit filings beginning on Friday after Chutkan ordered both parties to propose how to move forward following the Supreme Court’s decision on July 1. Chutkan has currently slated a hearing for next Friday to begin work on the case after an eight-month delay, which was spurred due to Trump’s immunity appeal effort. The move by Smith to request a delay marks a stark change in the way he handled the case after it became the third of four criminal indictments against the former president last year. The special counsel often cited the need for a trial to occur before the election and emphasized the public’s need for a resolution. Chutkan had only regained jurisdiction last Friday after a monthlong wait for the case to return to her chambers. Due to the compounding delays in the case, legal experts suggested the case wouldn’t get to trial before the November presidential election but that there could be a sort of “mini-trial,” or evidentiary hearings with live witness testimony ahead of the election. If Chutkan grants this request, it will likely further diminish the extent of pretrial adjudication ahead of the election. The request also signals how Smith and the Justice Department are still grappling with the best route forward following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, which has become a point of marked criticism by President Joe Biden, who recently backed an effort by Congress to pass an amendment that would effectively undo the justices’ decision. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Smith has also faced setbacks in his separate federal indictment against Trump over his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving the Oval Office, with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida recently dismissing the case on the grounds that Smith was improperly appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. That decision is currently being appealed by Smith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, which encompasses his challenging of the election results after his defeat in November 2020. He pleaded not guilty to the charges last August., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MixCollage-27-May-2024-09-14-PM-2889.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,