Connect with us

News

US Supreme Court will hear Donald Trump presidential immunity appeal

Published

on

US Supreme Court will hear Donald Trump presidential immunity appeal

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The US Supreme Court has agreed to take up an appeal over whether Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed in office, putting another potentially blockbuster case involving the former president on the high court’s docket ahead of the 2024 election.

The order on Wednesday will further delay a trial in a criminal case filed by the Department of Justice accusing Trump of seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election. It will also give the high court — three of whose members were appointed by the former president — the chance to issue a landmark ruling on a question that could have major consequences for the upcoming election and for the presidency more broadly.

The Supreme Court set oral arguments in the matter for the week of April 22, with a decision expected in the case by the end of its term, which usually concludes in late June.

Advertisement

It had previously refused a request from Jack Smith, the DoJ special counsel overseeing federal criminal cases against Trump, to bypass the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, an intermediate appeals court, and hear the presidential immunity matter immediately last year.

Earlier this month, that court handed down a unanimous ruling that barred Trump from using presidential immunity as a shield against the DoJ indictment.

Lawyers for Trump subsequently asked the Supreme Court to put the appeals court order on hold while he appealed against the decision. They argued that a “claim that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts presents a novel, complex, and momentous question that warrants careful consideration on appeal”.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the appellate court’s order would remain on hold until it resolves the issue. The federal elections trial was originally set to begin on March 4 but has been postponed.

Had the court not taken the case, the lower appeals court’s ruling would have remained in place and proceedings in the trial court could have resumed imminently. It is unclear now whether Trump will face trial in the case before the election in November, when he is likely to face Joe Biden in a rematch of 2020.

Advertisement

Smith had warned the Supreme Court that a “delay in the resolution of [the election] charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict”.

Trump reacted to the decision with satisfaction, suggesting he sees it as a big legal victory. “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up presidential immunity,” he said, adding: “Without presidential immunity, a president will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America.” 

Democrats were extremely critical both because of the delay that the decision would bring to Trump’s trial, and concern that some justices on the court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, may be sympathetic to the former president’s argument that he is immune from prosecution for his official actions while in office. 

“The Supreme Court is placing itself on trial with this decision to hear the former president’s total immunity claim,” Nancy Pelosi, the California congresswoman and former House speaker, wrote on X. “It remains to be seen whether the justices will uphold the fundamental American value that no one is above the law — not even a former president.”

The high court has previously ruled on presidential immunity against civil claims, but it has yet to address the issue in relation to criminal charges.

Advertisement

Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School, said that even if the high court decides the case speedily, “a determination that the prosecution can proceed will leave the district court hard-pressed to schedule a trial before the general election”.

“Arguments that Trump and the people have a strong first amendment interest in presenting his views to the electorate are substantial, and may well counsel against requiring him to sit in the courtroom instead of campaigning,” he added.

The DoJ declined to comment.

Trump’s latest presidential campaign has been unfolding alongside a jam-packed legal calendar as he faces cases in courts across the country. Most recently he was slammed with a penalty of more than $450mn, including interest, in a civil lawsuit in New York over “blatant” fraud committed by his real estate empire. An appeals court judge in New York on Wednesday declined to pause enforcement of that judgment while Trump appeals.

He faces a total of 91 criminal charges across four separate cases. The DoJ and the state of Georgia have separately charged Trump with meddling in the 2020 election. Another federal indictment accused him of mishandling sensitive government documents.

Advertisement

The first case to reach trial will be one brought by Alvin Bragg, Manhattan district attorney, who alleged that Trump made “hush money” payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 election. Proceedings are set to start on March 25.

According to recent polling, Americans see the federal case related to the 2020 polls as the most serious for Trump, and a conviction in the case could lead to a drop in support for him in the general election.

The Supreme Court has also taken up another politically sensitive case involving Trump. It is poised to decide whether he can be barred from Colorado’s primary ballot in the presidential election, after a ruling from that state’s high court determined he was ineligible to hold office. It heard oral arguments in the case earlier this month.

An Illinois court on Wednesday joined Colorado and Maine in throwing Trump off the state’s presidential primary ballot on the basis that he engaged in insurrection. The evidence in the case is linked to the January 6 2021 attack when his supporters stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to halt the certification of Biden’s victory. The order remains on hold pending a potential appeal and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Colorado case.

Trump’s campaign called the Illinois ruling “unconstitutional” and vowed to “quickly” appeal against it.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by James Politi

News

Arson engulfs Mississippi synagogue, a congregation once bombed by Ku Klux Klan

Published

on

Arson engulfs Mississippi synagogue, a congregation once bombed by Ku Klux Klan

A fire damaged the Beth Israel Congregation in Jackson, Miss. The fire department said arson was the cause.

Hannah Orlansky/Beth Israel Congregation


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Hannah Orlansky/Beth Israel Congregation

Authorities have charged one person with arson in a fire that badly damaged Beth Israel Congregation in Jackson, Miss., early Saturday morning. The Jackson Fire Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, and the FBI are investigating.

Zach Shemper, Beth Israel Congregation president, said he’s stunned.

“Crazy things happen all over the world and nothing really hits home until it actually hits directly home,” he told Mississippi Public Broadcasting. “When it hits home, it’s just hard. Honestly, I’m still trying to wrap my own head around it.”

Advertisement

Shemper also released a statement saying the synagogue and its 150 families are resilient.

“As Jackson’s only synagogue, Beth Israel is a beloved institution, and it is the fellowship of our neighbors and extended community that will see us through,” he said.

The congregation was founded in 1860, according to Beth Israel’s website. In 1967, local Ku Klux Klan members bombed the place of worship and the home of the rabbi at the time, who had spoken out against racism and segregation. No one was hurt in the civil rights-era bombings or Saturday’s fire.

Charles Felton, Jackson Fire Department chief of fire investigations, told NPR in an interview on Sunday that flames and smoke caused extensive damage and destroyed Beth Israel’s library, where he says the fire was started. The fire was reported to 911 just after 3 a.m.

“All contents in that library are destroyed. There’s not much that can be retrieved from the library area. The other portions of the building do not have actual fire damage, but they have damage as far as smoke and soot,” he said.

Advertisement

Shemper said the fire destroyed two Torahs, the Jewish sacred texts, and damaged five others. A Torah that survived the Holocaust was protected by a glass display case and was not damaged. The synagogue’s Tree of Life plaque honoring congregants’ meaningful occasions was destroyed. Shemper said the library, administrative offices and the lobby suffered the most damage.

Surveillance video shows a man wearing a hoodie and a mask pouring liquid from a can inside the synagogue, according to Shemper. Felton said Jackson Fire investigators later received information from an area hospital that led them to the suspect, who was arrested Saturday evening.

“There was a suspect possibly burned at a local hospital,” he told NPR. “They did go to the hospital at which point they interviewed the person of interest and that person did confess to having involvement in the fire.”

The Jackson Fire Department’s powers include the authority to charge suspects, according to Felton, who said the department has filed arson charges against the suspect, who authorities have not publicly named. He said federal authorities will make a determination on whether to pursue hate crime charges.

The FBI’s office in Jackson said in a statement that it was aware of the incident and was working with other law enforcement on the investigation.

Advertisement

Jackson Mayor John Horhn said the city stands with Beth Israel and the Jewish community.

“Acts of antisemitism, racism, and religious hatred are attacks on Jackson as a whole and will be treated as acts of terror against residents’ safety and freedom to worship,” said a statement from the mayor’s office.

Beth Israel is planning to immediately move forward.

“With support from our community, we will rebuild. Beth Israel Congregation has been the Jewish spiritual home in Jackson, Mississippi, for over 160 years,” said Shemper’s statement. “We are devastated but ready to rebuild.”

He said several local churches have offered temporary space for Beth Israel to continue services.

Advertisement

The attack comes after investigators say a father and son opened fire on Jewish people celebrating Hanukkah on Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, last month. Fifteen people were killed and dozens were injured.

Continue Reading

News

Nationwide anti-ICE protests call for accountability after Renee Good’s death

Published

on

Nationwide anti-ICE protests call for accountability after Renee Good’s death

A large bird puppet crafted at In the Heart of the Beast Puppet and Mask Theatre in Minneapolis is carried down Lake Street during a march demanding ICE’s removal from Minnesota on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2026.

Ben Hovland/MPR News


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Hovland/MPR News

People have been taking to the streets nationwide this weekend to protest the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics following the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis, a 37-year-old woman who was shot and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer this week.

At least 1,000 events across the U.S. were planned for Saturday and Sunday, according to Indivisible, a progressive grassroots coalition of activists helping coordinate the movement it calls “ICE Out For Good Weekend of Action.”

Leah Greenberg, a co-executive director of Indivisible, said people are coming together to “grieve, honor those we’ve lost, and demand accountability from a system that has operated with impunity for far too long.”

Advertisement

“Renee Nicole Good was a wife, a mother of three, and a member of her community. She, and the dozens of other sons, daughters, friends, siblings, parents, and community members who have been killed by ICE, should be alive today,” Greenberg said in a statement on Friday. “ICE’s violence is not a statistic, it has names, families, and futures attached to it, and we refuse to look away or stay silent.”

Large crowds of demonstrators carried signs and shouted “ICE out now!” as protests continued across Minneapolis on Saturday. One of those protestors, Cameron Kritikos, told NPR that he is worried that the presence of more ICE agents in the city could lead to more violence or another death.

“If more ICE officers are deployed to the streets, especially a place here where there’s very clear public opposition to the terrorizing of our neighborhoods, I’m nervous that there’s going to be more violence,” the 31-year grocery store worker said. “I’m nervous that there are going to be more clashes with law enforcement officials, and at the end of the day I think that’s not what anyone wants.”

Demonstrators in Minneapolis on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2026.

Demonstrators in Minneapolis on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2026.

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR

The night before, hundreds of city and state police officers responded to a “noise protest” in downtown Minneapolis. An estimated 1,000 people gathered Friday night, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, and 29 people were arrested.

Advertisement

People demonstrated outside of hotels where ICE agents were believed to be staying. They chanted, played drums and banged pots. O’Hara said that a group of people split from the main protest and began damaging hotel windows. One police officer was injured from a chunk of ice that was hurled at officers, he added.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey condemned the acts of violence but praised what he said was the “vast majority” of protesters who remained peaceful, during a morning news conference.

“To anyone who causes property damage or puts others in danger: you will be arrested. We are standing up to Donald Trump’s chaos not with our own brand of chaos, but with care and unity,” Frey wrote on social media.

Commenting on the protests, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told NPR in a statement, “the First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly — not rioting, assault and destruction,” adding, “DHS is taking measures to uphold the rule of law and protect public safety and our officers.”

Advertisement

Good was fatally shot the day after DHS launched a large-scale immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota set to deploy 2,000 immigration officers to the state.

In Philadelphia, police estimated about 500 demonstrators “were cooperative and peaceful” at a march that began Saturday morning at City Hall, Philadelphia Police Department spokesperson Tanya Little told NPR in a statement. And no arrests were made.

In Portland, Ore., demonstrators rallied and lined the streets outside of a hospital on Saturday afternoon, where immigration enforcement agents bring detainees who are injured during an arrest, reported Oregon Public Broadcasting.

A man and woman were shot and injured by U.S. Border Patrol agents on Thursday in the city. DHS said the shooting happened during a targeted vehicle stop and identified the driver as Luis David Nino-Moncada, and the passenger as Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras, both from Venezuela. As was the case in their assertion about Good’s fatal shooting, Homeland Security officials claimed the federal agent acted in self-defense after Nino-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras “weaponized their vehicle.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Why men should really be reading more fiction

Published

on

Why men should really be reading more fiction

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A friend sent a meme to a group chat last week that, like many internet memes before it, managed to implant itself deep into my brain and capture an idea in a way that more sophisticated, expansive prose does not always manage. Somewhat ironically, the meme was about the ills of the internet. 

“People in 1999 using the internet as an escape from reality,” the text read, over an often-used image from a TV series of a face looking out of a car window. Below it was another face looking out of a different car window overlaid with the text: “People in 2026 using reality as an escape from the internet.” 

Oof. So simple, yet so spot on. With AI-generated slop — sorry, content — now having overtaken human-generated words and images online, with social media use appearing to have peaked and with “dumb phones” being touted as this year’s status symbol, it does feel as if the tide is beginning to turn towards the general de-enshittification of life. 

Advertisement

And what could be a better way to resist the ever-swelling stream of mediocrity and nonsense on the internet, and to stick it to the avaricious behemoths of the “attention economy”, than to pick up a work of fiction (ideally not purchased on one of these behemoths’ platforms), with no goal other than sheer pleasure and the enrichment of our lives? But while the tide might have started to turn, we don’t seem to have quite got there yet on the reading front, if we are on our way there at all.

Two-fifths of Britons said last year that they had not read a single book in the previous 12 months, according to YouGov. And, as has been noted many times before on both sides of the Atlantic, it is men who are reading the least — just 53 per cent had read any book over the previous year, compared with 66 per cent of women — both in overall numbers and specifically when it comes to fiction.

Yet pointing this out, and lamenting the “disappearance of literary men”, has become somewhat contentious. A much-discussed Vox article last year asked: “Are men’s reading habits truly a national crisis?” suggesting that they were not and pointing out that women only read an average of seven minutes more fiction per day than men (while failing to note that this itself represents almost 60 per cent more reading time).

Meanwhile an UnHerd op-ed last year argued that “the literary man is not dead”, positing that there exists a subculture of male literature enthusiasts keeping the archetype alive and claiming that “podcasts are the new salons”. 

That’s all well and good, but the truth is that there is a gender gap between men and women when it comes to reading and engaging specifically with fiction, and it’s growing.

Advertisement

According to a 2022 survey by the US National Endowment for the Arts, 27.7 per cent of men had read a short story or novel over the previous year, down from 35.1 per cent a decade earlier. Women’s fiction-reading habits declined too, but more slowly and from a higher base: 54.6 per cent to 46.9 per cent, meaning that while women out-read men by 55 per cent in 2012 when it came to fiction, they did so by almost 70 per cent in 2022.

The divide is already apparent in young adulthood, and it has widened too: data from 2025 showed girls in England took an A-Level in English literature at an almost four-times-higher rate than boys, with that gap having grown from a rate of about three times higher just eight years earlier.

So the next question is: should we care and, if so, why? Those who argue that yes, we should, tend to give a few reasons. They point out that reading fiction fosters critical thinking, empathy and improves “emotional vocabulary”. They argue that novels often contain heroic figures and strong, virtuous representations of masculinity that can inspire and motivate modern men. They cite Andrew Tate, the titan of male toxicity, who once said that “reading books is for losers who are afraid to learn from life”, and that “books are a total waste of time”, as an example of whose advice not to follow. 

I agree with all of this — wholeheartedly, I might add. But I’m not sure how many of us, women or men, are picking up books in order to become more virtuous people. Perhaps the more compelling, or at least motivating, reason for reading fiction is simply that it offers a form of pleasure and attention that the modern world is steadily eroding. In a hyper-capitalist culture optimised for skimming and distraction, the ability to sit still with a novel is both subversive and truly gratifying. The real question, then, is why so many men are not picking one up.

jemima.kelly@ft.com

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending