Connect with us

Politics

Column: Will Trump's conviction survive the Supreme Court's immunity ruling? It's complicated

Published

on

Column: Will Trump's conviction survive the Supreme Court's immunity ruling? It's complicated

It was only hours after the Supreme Court issued its staggering term-ending opinion on presidential immunity when Donald Trump invoked it in an attempt to set aside his criminal conviction in New York.

On the surface, the effort would seem ill-fated and even brazen.

The opinion made a top-line distinction between “official actions” — which are either immune or presumed immune from criminal prosecution — and “unofficial actions,” which are not. And it’s hard to imagine more prototypically unofficial actions than those of which Trump was convicted in the New York case. While still running for president, Trump devised a scheme to suppress stories of his alleged trysts — in particular with the adult film actor Stormy Daniels — and falsified business records to further the cover-up.

Most of the critical conduct took place before Trump was in office, the exception being the payments to his fixer, Michael Cohen, that generated the false paperwork. And the reimbursement of Cohen from a personal bank account was patently unofficial conduct even though it coincided with Trump’s presidency.

So Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over the trial, might be expected to make quick work of Trump’s effort to shoehorn the conviction into the sphere of “official action” for which the court prescribed immunity.

Advertisement

In fact, however, the court’s opinion is strewn with mines and sinkholes that Trump might be able to use to gain a new trial or at least render his conviction provisional for an extended period. These facets of the opinion are part and parcel of its enormous scope and overreach, all to protect a party of exactly one: the only president ever to be charged with a crime.

The court’s revolutionary holding places the president largely outside the reach of criminal law, but the conservative majority wasn’t content to stop there. Its expansive guidance “for the ages,” as Justice Neil M. Gorsuch put it at oral argument, dictates that a jury may not even consider a president’s official acts as evidence to prove a crime involving unofficial conduct.

The court’s reasoning here is particularly threadbare, simply asserting that allowing evidence of official actions would undo the protections of immunity, which the conservative majority considers necessary to ensure a nimble and vigorous presidency. Yet it makes little sense to suggest that a president would be constrained by the prospect that a jury might one day hear about their official actions. Most official actions are public anyway, and those that aren’t can be protected by executive privilege and other means when there is a particular need to to so.

This is where Justice Amy Coney Barrett parted with her fellow conservatives, noting that “the Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable.”

In the context of Trump’s motion to set aside his New York conviction, a fair-minded court should have little trouble concluding that the conduct at issue was unofficial and therefore not subject even to the generous immunity protections prescribed by the justices. However, some of the evidence presented at trial at least arguably concerned official conduct, particularly under the Supreme Court’s wide-ranging, categorical definition of the term.

Advertisement

Most notably, the jury heard testimony from Hope Hicks about a conversation she had with Trump in 2018, when she was the White House communications director, about a report on Cohen’s hush money payments to Daniels and its public opinion repercussions. Prosecutors described Hicks’ testimony, which ended with her breaking down in tears, as “devastating.”

So was Trump’s conversation with Hicks in the White House “official conduct” that, under the immunity opinion, never should have been presented to the jury? And if so, do the convictions have to be set aside?

Those questions are far from straightforward. The answers depend not only on how the Hicks conversation is characterized but also on a thicket of procedural issues. Those include whether Trump may have waived the issue, whether any waiver applies under the Supreme Court’s holding and whether any error in allowing the testimony could be deemed harmless given the strength of the rest of the evidence.

Trump’s conviction may well survive the Supreme Court ruling in the end, but getting to that point won’t be quick or simple. Moreover, Merchan’s ruling is likely to be appealed to higher courts in New York and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court. That prospect could well temper the analysis of lower courts that now understand the breadth and zeal of the justices’ determination to shield Trump from accountability.

It appears as if the Supreme Court has dealt Trump not just a get-out-of-jail-free card but a whole deck of them, allowing him to contest and delay multiple facets of the nearly 100 criminal counts against him. If it turns out that he can use it to his advantage in New York, where he stands already convicted of manifestly personal conduct, it’s hard to imagine a case where he can’t.

Advertisement

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman

Politics

Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional

Published

on

Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

An appeals court struck down a local law in the District of Columbia that banned gun magazines containing more than 10 bullets, describing the measure as unconstitutional. 

The ruling Thursday from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals also reversed the conviction of Tyree Benson, who was taken into custody in 2022 for being in possession of a handgun with a magazine that could contain 30 bullets, according to The New York Times. 

“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today,” Judge Joshua Deahl wrote on behalf of the two-judge majority in the three-judge panel.   

“Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment,” he added.

Advertisement

A salesperson holds a high capacity magazine for an AR-15 rifle at a store in Orem, Utah, in March 2021.  (George Frey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“This appeal presents a Second Amendment challenge to the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding ‘more than 10 rounds of ammunition.’ Appellant Tyree Benson argues that ban contravenes the Second Amendment so that his conviction for violating it should be vacated,” Deahl also wrote. “The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, which is also a party to this appeal, continues to defend the constitutionality of its ban.” 

“We therefore reverse Benson’s conviction for violating the District’s magazine capacity ban. And because Benson could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, we likewise reverse his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition,” Deahl said.

Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, the judge who dissented, wrote that, “The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use.” 

GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT

Advertisement

Magazines at Norm’s Gun & Ammo shop in Biddeford, Maine, in April 2013. From left, the first two are high capacity magazines for handguns, an AK-47 magazine, an AR-15 magazine and an SKS magazine.   (Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)

“The majority, however, fails to contend with the reality that these statistics do not support the conclusion that the particularly lethal 30-round magazine, such as the one Mr. Benson possessed here, is in common use for self-defense. It simply is not,” she added.

The District of Columbia can now appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or ask the local appeals court to take another look at the ruling with a larger panel of judges, according to the Times. 

High-capacity rifle magazines are removed from a display at Freddie Bear Sports in January 2023 in Tinley Park, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The newspaper also reported that in a previous case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the local law surrounding gun magazine sizes. It’s unclear how the two rulings will interact. 

Related Article

Mike Lee unveils national constitutional carry bill to override 'hostile' state gun laws
Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them

Published

on

Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them

If Democrats expect to flip a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, they’ll need all the stars to align. This almost never happens, because politics has a way of scrambling the constellations. But on Tuesday, the first star blinked on.

I’m referring to state Rep. James Talarico’s victory over Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. Most political prognosticators agree that Talarico, an eloquent young Democrat who speaks openly about his Christian faith, is their best hope in a red state that Donald Trump won by 14 points.

The second star was Crockett’s conciliatory concession — far from a foregone conclusion after a nasty primary — in which she pledged to “do my part,” adding that “Texas is primed to turn blue, and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”

The third star — a vulnerable Republican opponent — has not yet appeared over the Texas sky, although forecasters say it might.

Most observers agree that scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton would be beatable in the general election, while incumbent Sen. John Cornyn would present a much tougher challenge. Cornyn is the kind of steady, conventional politician who tends to win elections, and so, of course, modern voters are extremely suspicious of him.

Advertisement

In the GOP primary on Tuesday, Cornyn’s 42% share of the vote edged out Paxton by about a point. Unfortunately for Republicans, neither candidate garnered enough votes to avoid a May 26 runoff election.

Conventional wisdom suggests that when a majority of Republican voters choose someone other than the incumbent in the first round of voting, an even greater majority will inevitably break toward the challenger in the runoff. If that happens, Paxton would become the nominee, and Democrats would get their third star to align.

Even better for Democrats — a fourth star, so to speak — would be for this protracted runoff to become a “knife fight,” as one Texas Republican predicted, in which Paxton staggers out of the fight as the battered GOP nominee.

The only problem is that Republicans can see these stars aligning, too.

And while the Texas Senate seat matters a lot on its own, it matters even more in the context of nationwide midterm elections, in which a Texas win would help Democrats take back the Senate.

Advertisement

Enter the cavalry — or, more accurately, President Trump, who is now entering a second war in the span of a week, this one a civil war in the Lone Star State.

The day after the primary, Trump announced that he would be “making my Endorsement soon, and will be asking the candidate that I don’t Endorse to immediately DROP OUT OF THE RACE!”

Reports suggest Trump may endorse Cornyn in order to save the seat for Republicans. But who knows? Trump is famously unpredictable. And it’s likely he admires Paxton’s ability to survive scandals that would have caused most normal politicians to curl up in the fetal position. As they say, “game recognizes game.”

Whomever he backs, conventional wisdom also says Trump should make his endorsement “soon,” as he promised. That would save Republicans a lot of time and money. But Trump currently has enormous leverage. Right now, people are coming to him, pleading for his support.

Do you think he wants to resolve that situation quickly?

Advertisement

Me neither.

With Trump, you never know what you’re going to get. In 2021, he helped torpedo Republican Senate candidates David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in Georgia, handing Democrats control of the Senate. The following year he backed football legend Herschel Walker in another Georgia Senate race, which did not exactly work out great. Democrat Raphael Warnock won and holds that seat, though Walker is now ambassador to the Bahamas so that’s something.

This is to say: Trump’s political assistance does not always assist.

It’s unclear whether Trump’s endorsement would be dispositive — and whether he could muscle the other Republican out of the primary race.

Paxton, for example, initially vowed to stay in the race, no matter what. (He later suggested he would “consider” dropping out if the Senate passes the SAVE America Act, a bill to require proof of citizenship to vote.)

Advertisement

There’s also this: Trump’s endorsements tend to either be made out of vengeance or to pad the totals of an already inevitable winner, so his track record is probably overrated.

Case in point: While most of his endorsed candidates won their Texas elections, his endorsed candidate for agriculture commissioner lost reelection. And according to the Texas Tribune, “at least three Trump-endorsed candidates for Congress were headed to runoffs, one of them in a distant second place.”

Another issue is that Cornyn needs more than a perfunctory endorsement: He needs a clear, full-throated endorsement.

In a 2022 Missouri Senate race, Trump endorsed “ERIC,” which was awkward because two candidates named Eric were running.

More recently, he endorsed two rival candidates in the same 2026 Arizona gubernatorial race — like betting on both teams in the Super Bowl.

Advertisement

This is all to say that the only thing standing between Texas Democrats and a rare celestial alignment may be the whims of the Republican Party’s one and only star.

Sure, establishment Republicans can beg Trump to quickly step in and settle the race, and maybe he will. But it’s entirely possible the president will find a way to blow up his party’s chances for holding the U.S. Senate — and there’s nothing they can do to stop him.

When you’re a star, they let you do it.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

Published

on

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

transcript

transcript

President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”

Advertisement
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

By Jackeline Luna

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending