Politics
Barrett sought middle ground in Trump immunity case. This time Roberts said no
The Supreme Court ended its term divided into partisan blocs, with the Republican appointees ruling in favor of former President Trump’s claim of immunity while the three Democratic appointees voiced a bitter dissent.
It’s exactly the result many critics of the court might have expected, with politics driving the law. It’s also what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has tried hard to avoid — at least most of the time.
For much of this year, Roberts and the justices succeeded in defusing partisan splits with narrow or procedural rulings.
By a 9-0 vote, they threw out a Texas lawsuit seeking to block millions of American women from obtaining abortion pills. They denied gun rights to people who are under a domestic violence restraining order in a 8-1 decision.
But the chief justice did not seek to bridge the partisan divide in the case of Trump vs. United States. He passed up the chance for a narrow consensus ruling offered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett that could have won over the court’s liberals.
A former Notre Dame law professor, Barrett saw no need for a broad ruling on presidential immunity in Trump’s case.
“Properly conceived, the president’s constitutional protection from prosecution is narrow,” she wrote in a concurring opinion. “The Constitution does not insulate presidents from criminal liability for official acts.”
Yes, the president cannot be prosecuted for the exercise of his “core” constitutional powers, she said, agreeing with the conservative majority on that point.
But she said the indictment before the court focused on Trump’s effort to overturn his election defeat by, for example, encouraging Republican state legislators to create false slates of electors claiming that Trump, not Biden, won in their state.
This is “private conduct,” Barrett said. “The president has no authority over state legislatures,” and the Constitution offers Trump “no protection from prosecution of acts taken in a private capacity.”
That was just the kind of middle-ground position that Roberts usually seeks. Instead, he dismissed it.
The court must uphold “enduring principles” involving the “separation of powers and the future of our Republic. … We cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies,” he said, referring to the case before the court.
It wasn’t the first time Barrett split with Roberts this year in a high-profile case involving Trump. One week ago, Barrett disagreed with Roberts and said she would have upheld the obstruction charges against the Trump supporters who broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. She said Roberts did “textual backflips” to ignore what the law said.
Why did Roberts and the four conservatives on his right insist on a broad ruling on presidential immunity?
Unlike Barrett, all five have worked in Washington in Republican administrations and are attuned to how politics drives most investigations that involve presidents and their administrations.
Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh worked as White House lawyers for Republican presidents.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was in high school when his mother, Anne Gorsuch, was forced to resign as President Reagan’s administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. House Democrats had voted to hold her in contempt for refusing to turn over documents at the behest of the White House involving hazardous waste dumps.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. came to the court after tough confirmation hearings in which they clashed with then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). More recently, they have been steady targets of Democrats for their undisclosed vacation trips paid for by billionaires. They were the most likely to vote for Trump’s broad claim of immunity.
Many Republicans, not just Trump’s supporters, saw the prosecutions of the former president through a political lens. Never before, they said, had a former president from one party been indicted for crimes by the administration of the party that replaced him.
Moreover, the Trump case took shape in the last year as the former president prepared to run against the Democratic president who ousted him.
In November 2022, Trump announced he would seek the presidency again. Biden said he too would run. Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, then appointed Jack Smith, a hard-charging prosecutor, as a special counsel to pursue the investigation of Trump’s actions following the 2020 election.
Last August, Smith indicted Trump for conspiring to overturn his election loss, and he sought a fast-track jury trial for early this year. He also indicted Trump in Florida for mishandling secret and highly classified documents.
Meanwhile in New York, Manhattan Dist.Atty. Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat, indicted Trump on 34 felony counts for false bookkeeping entries intended to hide payments to a porn star. New York’s state attorney general, Letitia James, a Democrat, sought and won a $355-million civil penalty against Trump for allegedly inflating his assets. In Georgia, Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis, an elected Democrat, indicted Trump and 18 others on state racketeering charges involving the 2020 election.
Democrats and progressive groups cheered the indictments as signs that Trump was finally being held to account in the courts for his misdeeds. They were not prepared for what happened when Trump’s case reached the Supreme Court.
In early December, the special counsel petitioned the justices to take up Trump’s claims immediately. It is of “imperative public importance” the case move promptly toward a trial, he said. Two weeks later, his appeal was turned down without comment.
In February, the U.S. appeals court in Washington said the case may move forward, but the Supreme Court put it on hold and scheduled arguments for the end of April on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.
Those arguments and this week’s opinion made clear that Roberts and the conservative justices saw the issue through an entirely different prism than the liberals and Democrats.
“No president has ever faced criminal charges — let alone for his conduct in office,” Roberts said. Responding to the fierce dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, he said she was engaged in “fearmongering” that ignores the “more likely prospect of an executive branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors.” He foresaw “the enfeebling of the presidency” and “a cycle of factional strife.”
Roberts concluded by noting the newly declared immunity for presidents “applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”
Which poses the greater danger to the nation — a president who can break the law knowing he is forever shielded from prosecution or a president under constant threat that they may face prosecution after leaving office by partisan opponents?
Georgetown law professor Irv Gornstein, director of its Supreme Court Institute, said that question explains much about the outcome.
“If you think that tit-for-tat prosecution of ex-presidents poses a greater risk to the presidency and democracy than Trump, you probably think that presumptive immunity for all official acts makes sense,” he said. “But if you think that Trump is the greater threat, as many Americans almost certainly do, you probably think the court cares more about Trump and his reelection prospects than it does about democracy and the rule of law.”
“When a sizable portion of the public has already lost confidence in the court, that is something the court ought to worry about,” he added.
Many critics on the left said the chief justice had made a colossal error of judgment that will overshadow his career.
Quinta Jurecic and Ben Wittes, writing in the Lawfare blog, called it a “decision of surpassing recklessness in dangerous times.”
The “court majority may flatter itself that it’s staying out of politics. But this is a fairy tale the justices are telling themselves — if they are, in fact, telling themselves this pleasant little tale,” the pair said. “In fact, they are handing a powerful immunity to an adjudged felon who may be about to assume the executive power of the United States.”
Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, a top Justice Department attorney under President George W. Bush, said in response that it will not be clear for some time whether the court made the right call. But he said the Democratic lawyers made a mistake by relying on the courts to stop Trump.
“It has been a fantasy for many years now to think that courts and prosecutors can purge the nation of a law-defiant populist demagogue,” he said. “Only politics, not law, can do that.”
Politics
Video: Former Presidents Speak at Jesse Jackson’s Memorial
new video loaded: Former Presidents Speak at Jesse Jackson’s Memorial
transcript
transcript
Former Presidents Speak at Jesse Jackson’s Memorial
Barack Obama, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Bill Clinton were among the dozens of speakers at a public memorial for the late Rev. Jesse Jackson in Chicago on Friday. The event celebrated the civil rights leader’s commitment to public service and racial justice.
-
“It was because of that path that he had laid, because of his courage, his audacity, that two decades later a young Black senator from Chicago’s South Side would even be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidential nomination. The last time he and I had a chance to visit in person, he was already ailing. It was getting difficult for him to stand, difficult for him to speak. Figured we’d just have a low-key visit. Maybe he’d need some rest. And he starts coming up with this project and this initiative and issues I needed to look into.” “He used his gifts to influence generations, generations of Americans, and countless elected officials including presidents, as you see here today.” “We did not always agree, but I’ll tell you one thing. He made me a better president when I got in office. Because he was always pushing on things and he knew that change came from the outside in.” “In the movements for justice that have grown from the seeds that he tilled. Now, to the world, Jesse Jackson was an ambassador of hope for the oppressed who met with kings and queens and presidents and dictators and clergy of all the great religions. But here in Chicago, he was our neighbor.”
By Jorge Mitssunaga
March 6, 2026
Politics
Man convicted of Iran-backed Trump assassination plot compared his plan to Butler shooting: FBI
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A Pakistani man convicted Friday in federal court of plotting to assassinate President Donald Trump and other politicians told an FBI agent he thought Iran “was responsible” for the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Asif Merchant, 47, told the FBI agent, Jacqueline Smith, that the incident “was the same thing he was sent here to do,” Smith testified during Merchant’s trial. Merchant told jurors the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) sent him on a “mission” to kill U.S. politicians, including by telling him to attend a Republican rally.
Merchant was arrested July 12, 2024, one day prior to the shooting in Butler, where Thomas Crooks fired several shots into a rally crowd, killing one and grazing Trump’s ear.
The FBI has said repeatedly it found no evidence that Crooks had co-conspirators or that any foreign actors were involved in the incident.
A sketch showing Asif Merchant, a Pakistani national with alleged ties to Iran, appearing in federal court in Brooklyn, N.Y., Wednesday, March 4, 2026. Merchant was on trial for charges related to a foiled 2024 plot to assassinate a high-profile U.S. politician, identified by defense and law enforcement sources as President Donald Trump. (Christine Cornell)
Merchant, who was found guilty on all charges Friday after fewer than two hours of deliberation, was convicted by a jury in Brooklyn, New York, of murder-for-hire and attempting to commit terrorism. He testified that Trump was not his only target, telling jurors then-President Joe Biden and former presidential candidate Nikki Haley were also on his list.
He claimed he only took part in the plot, which was foiled by the FBI before coming to fruition, because Iran’s IRGC warned it would target his family.
FORMER IRANIAN MINISTER PRAISES TRUMP ASSASSINATION FATWA AS DAUGHTER LIVES IN NEW YORK
“I had no other options,” Merchant said. “My family was threatened.”
Merchant now faces a maximum penalty of life in prison. His sentence will be determined at a later hearing.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement that Merchant “landed on American soil hoping to kill President Trump — instead, he was met with the might of American law enforcement.”
“The Department of Justice will remain ever-vigilant to protect Americans, prosecute terrorists, and halt acts of terrorism before they happen,” Bondi said.
This image provided by the Justice Department, contained in the complaint supporting the arrest warrant, shows Asif Merchant. (Justice Department via AP, File)
Merchant was arrested after he was recorded on camera outlining a plot on a napkin to kill a politician with a person who turned out to be an FBI informant. Federal prosecutors showed video during the trial of Merchant speaking to the informant. The prosecutors said Merchant also tried to hire two hit men and pay them $5,000, but the men turned out to be federal agents posing as assassins.
Smith, the FBI agent who met with Merchant after his arrest, said Merchant never conveyed that he feared for his family. Merchant said he wanted to do intelligence work and be paid for it, Smith said.
TRUMP DECLARES ‘I GOT HIM BEFORE HE GOT ME’ AFTER IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER KILLED IN STRIKE
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is whisked away by the Secret Service after shots rang out at a campaign rally at Butler Farm Show Inc. July 13, 2024, in Butler, Pa. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
The FBI agent also said Merchant was told by an Iranian handler to attend a Republican political rally to scope out security. But Merchant was worried about being identified, so he watched the rally online instead.
Merchant’s defense team told jurors their client, who has two wives, was a family man and cared deeply about his faith and that he intentionally acted carelessly because he wanted to be caught.
In their closing arguments, defense lawyers said Merchant had his hand forced in the operation, thinking his family would be harmed if he did not cooperate. Additionally, the lawyers cited several instances in which Merchant’s actions as an intelligence operator were little more than incompetent.
Fox News’ Danielle Cavaliere, Brendan McDonald and Alexis McAdams contributed to this report.
Politics
Veteran Rep. Darrell Issa decides not to seek reelection in new Democratic-leaning district
Veteran Republican Rep. Darrell Issa announced Friday that he will not run for reelection in his newly configured congressional district in San Diego and Riverside counties.
“This decision has been on my mind for a while and I didn’t make it lightly,” Issa said in a statement, arguing that he would have won the 2026 race based on his campaign’s polling and his support from President Trump among others. “But after a quarter-century in Congress — and before that, a quarter-century in business — it’s the right time for a new chapter and new challenges.”
Issa called serving in Congress “the honor of my life,” and highlighted his work for constituents such as 100-year-old retired Navy fighter pilot Royce Williams, who was awarded a congressional medal of honor during Trump’s State of the Union address. “… every day my teams in Washington and California have worked to deliver for our constituents,” Issa said.
Issa, among the wealthiest members of Congress, began telling people earlier this week that he would retire from Congress, sources said.
He had an outsized impact on state and national politics, according to political experts and strategists, including funding the successful 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis, which ushered Arnold Schwarzenegger into office, and his work as the head of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during high-profile investigations of the Obama administration.
“Darrell Issa was a constant and consequential presence in the Republican Party in California without ever being its most prominent leader,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. “He’s the person probably most responsible for the recall of Gray Davis going forward, but then he got boxed out of the race when Arnold Schwarzenegger got in. He became one of the most prominent protagonists of Barack Obama. But that never elevated him to statewide prominence or statewide office in his own state.”
National and state Republicans lauded Issa.
“We are grateful for Congressman Darrell Issa’s decades of dedicated service to the people of California and our nation,” said Christian Martinez, the spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Throughout his career, he has embodied the spirit of public service, championed our military, and fought tirelessly for a stronger America.”
Kevin Spillane, a San Diego-area GOP political strategist, said Issa substantially enhanced his national profile during the investigation into the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, that resulted in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“He’s been a national figure pretty much since he has been in Congress,” Spillane said. “He was of the people most vocal on Benghazi. He has been a national foil to Obama and Hillary Clinton. He was a major statewide figure in terms of funding the recall that allowed Arnold Schwarzenegger to be elected. He has been a major figure in San Diego County politics for more than two decades. He’s an important member of Congress.
“It is a loss for California Republicans in terms of our congressional delegation,” Spillane said. “It’s a loss for national Republicans in terms of losing a significant figure in the Republican caucus.”
Issa’s move was prompted by the reconfiguration of his congressional district under Proposition 50, a redistricting plan voters passed in November to counter President Trump’s efforts to push GOP-led states to redraw their congressional lines to favor Republicans.
“Rep. Issa is unfortunately a victim of his own inaction,” said Paul Mitchell, the Democratic strategist who drew the new congressional districts voters approved in November that made Issa’s reelection prospects shaky. “Privately all the California Republican incumbents knew it was a mistake, and yet the veterans with all the chairmanships and power didn’t speak out.”
Issa wasn’t the only Republican member of California’s congressional delegation whose reelection plans shifted on Friday because of Proposition 50.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Roseville) made a surprise announcement Friday evening that he would run for reelection as an independent candidate.
Voter-approved redistricting last year fractured Kiley’s huge Northern California district into six pieces. Earlier this week he announced he would run in the district that includes his hometown and other Sacramento-area suburbs but has a nine-point Democratic voter registration advantage.
Kiley described his decision to run as a no party preference candidate as a way to “fight back and protect our democracy” from “partisan games.”
“It is no secret I’ve been frustrated, at times disgusted, by the hyper-partisanship in Congress. In the last year it’s led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, a massive increase in healthcare costs, and of course, a pointless redistricting war,” Kiley wrote on the social media site X.
Shortly after Issa announced his retirement Friday evening, Democrats were quick to celebrate and boast about the party’s prospects of winning the seat and increasing its ranks in California’s congressional delegation.
“After over two decades of disastrous representation, Darrell Issa is once again running for the exits — and good riddance,” said Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Issa abandoning his voters now is the clearest sign yet that Republicans know he can’t win on his record of skyrocketing prices, gutting healthcare, and looking out for himself and wealthy special interests above all else.”
Issa endorsed San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond to replace him. His supervisorial districts includes more than a quarter of the new district.
Desmond has been running in a neighboring congressional district that straddles Orange and San Diego counties that is currently represented by Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano). Though the Levin district has been considered competitive, Proposition 50 made it more safely Democratic. Desmond withdrew from that race and filed to run in Issa’s district on Thursday, according to the San Diego County registrar of voters.
Issa, 72, has represented various San Diego-area districts in Congress for 23 years. Issa’s once solidly Republican district had been trending more moderate in recent years.
Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by more than four percentage points in Issa’s new district, which spans San Diego and Riverside counties and was reshaped to include liberal communities such as Palm Springs, according to the nonpartisan California Target Book. Issa’s current congressional district had a 12-percentage-point GOP edge in voter registration in 2024.
As soon as the new districts were approved, speculation began swirling about Issa‘s reelection plans. Some of his supporters in Texas urged him to move there to run in a GOP-friendly Dallas-area district, but he said in December that he declined and would instead seek reelection in California.
“I believe that the people of San Diego County, who have elected me so many times, will, in fact, regardless of registration, vote for me,” Issa told the Fox affiliate in San Diego in December. “This is my home, and I’m going to fight for it.”
Several Democrats had already announced plans to challenge Issa, including San Diego City Council member Marni Lynn von Wilpert and repeat candidate Ammar Campa-Najar.
Issa, a high school dropout and Army veteran, made his fortune by purchasing a struggling electronics business in 1980 and transforming it into the Viper car alarm system, with Issa’s voice warning potential thieves to “stand back.”
Times staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Wisconsin5 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts4 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Maryland6 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida6 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Oregon1 week ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling