Connect with us

News

Biden is backing major Supreme Court reforms. Here’s what they would do.

Published

on

Biden is backing major Supreme Court reforms. Here’s what they would do.

Washington — President Biden on Monday unveiled a trio of proposals to reform the Supreme Court, calling on Congress to pass legislation setting term limits for justices and establish binding, enforceable ethics rules for the nation’s highest court.

Mr. Biden’s proposed reforms come after the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, issued a series of landmark decisions in recent years that have upended longstanding rulings on abortion, affirmative action in higher education and federal regulatory power.

Those decisions, as well as scrutiny over ethics practices at the high court, have made it a target of Democrats and liberal advocacy groups, who have argued the Supreme Court has undermined public confidence in itself.

Two of Mr. Biden’s three proposed changes — term limits and a binding code of conduct — would require action from Congress, making it highly unlikely they will become law before the president leaves office in January 2025. His third reform is a constitutional amendment that clarifies that no president is immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. That proposal is Mr. Biden’s answer to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this month finding that former President Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official acts taken while in the White House.

Here’s what to know about Mr. Biden’s plan for Supreme Court reform.

Advertisement

What are the president’s proposed Supreme Court changes?

Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group photo on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group photo on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images


The first measure put forth by Mr. Biden is an amendment to the Constitution called the No One is Above the Law Amendment, which would state that the Constitution doesn’t grant immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction or sentencing to a former president, according to the White House. 

“I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators,” Mr. Biden wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post about his plan.

The second proposed reform would do away with lifetime appointments for members of the Supreme Court and instead set 18-year term limits. Under Mr. Biden’s plan, the president would appoint a new justice every two years, who would then serve for 18 years. 

Advertisement

“Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity,” Mr. Biden wrote. “That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come.”

The president’s third proposal is a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court, which would require justices in part to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and step aside from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest.

The Supreme Court implemented ethics rules in November, but it does not include an enforcement mechanism. Mr. Biden called its ethics code “weak and self-enforced.”

Will these be implemented?

It’s highly unlikely Mr. Biden’s proposed changes will be implemented in the coming months. Election Day is just 99 days away and, more importantly, Congress is divided. The president’s plans to impose term limits and a code of conduct would require legislative approval from the House and Senate.

Republicans narrowly control the House, and GOP lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have denounced Democrats’ criticisms of the court, arguing they are part of an effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court following rulings that they dislike. Legislation setting term limits for justices and establishing ethics rules would be unlikely to clear the House, and that’s if Republican leaders allowed a floor vote in the first place.

Advertisement

Additionally, there is a high bar for amending the Constitution. One method for proposing a constitutional amendment requires two-thirds support of both the House and Senate, and another is through a constitutional convention of two-thirds of state legislatures. Ratification requires support from three-fourths of state legislatures.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992.

But progressive groups are working to make the Supreme Court a motivating issue for voters in November. Some initiatives rolled out in recent months are aimed not only at helping Democrats hold onto the White House, but also keep control of the Senate and flip the House.

If Democrats were to gain a trifecta, it could clear the way for Congress to enact legislation reforming the Supreme Court. In the Senate, the party would have to significantly widen its majority, since 60 votes are required for legislation to advance. 

Why is he rolling these out now?

Mr. Biden forecast his reform proposal during remarks in the Oval Office last week, days after announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race and endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. The president said changing the Supreme Court is “critical to our democracy.”

Advertisement

Mr. Biden’s comments — and now his plan — marked a significant shift for the president, who resisted calls to endorse court reforms just a few years ago. During the 2020 election, the president declined to back so-called court packing, or adding seats to the Supreme Court, a proposal pushed by liberal advocacy groups.

Mr. Biden instead created a commission to study proposed changes, and the panel approved and submitted its report to him in December 2021. But the president didn’t publicly address the commission’s findings, even as Congress’ focus on the Supreme Court intensified last year amid concerns about its ethics policies. In his Washington Post op-ed, Mr. Biden thanked the commission for its “insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.”

Concerns from Democrats in Congress were sparked by reporting about Justice Clarence Thomas’ ties to GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, who paid for trips that the justice did not report on annual financial disclosure forms.

Thomas said he and Crow have been friends for decades, and the justice didn’t believe he was required to report the travel under prior guidelines for personal hospitality. He vowed last year to comply with new rules and listed additional travel provided by Crow on his latest disclosure forms.

Justice Samuel Alito has also faced backlash from Democrats over an upside-down American flag flown outside his Virginia residence in January 2021 and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag displayed outside his New Jersey vacation house in the summer of 2023.

Advertisement

Both types of flags were carried by rioters who breached the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021. Alito has said he was not involved in the displays outside his homes. Instead, the justice told congressional Democrats in May that his wife flew the two flags, and neither of them knew of the meanings ascribed to them in recent years.

Beyond the ethics practices, Democrats have also taken aim at the Supreme Court because of recent decisions from its conservative majority. In June 2022, the court overturned Roe v. Wade, and in June 2023, it rejected affirmative action in higher education.

In its most recent term, it overturned a 40-year-old decision to curtail the regulatory power of federal agencies, dismantled a Trump-era ban on bump stocks and narrowed the scope of a federal obstruction law used to charge scores of Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump.

The Supreme Court also found that former presidents are entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official acts taken while in Congress, a ruling with significant ramifications for special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump.

Citing the landscape surrounding the court, Mr. Biden wrote that “what is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.”

Advertisement

News

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

Published

on

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

A demonstrator holds a sign during International Overdose Awareness Day on Aug. 28, 2024 in New York City.

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

The Trump administration sent shockwaves through the U.S. mental health and drug addiction system late Tuesday, sending hundreds of termination letters, effective immediately, for federal grants supporting health services.

Three sources said they believe total cuts to nonprofit groups, many providing street-level care to people experiencing addiction, homelessness and mental illness, could reach roughly $2 billion. NPR wasn’t able to independently confirm the scale of the grant cancellation. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) didn’t respond to a request for clarification.

“We are definitely looking at severe loss of front-line capacity,” said Andrew Kessler, head of Slingshot Solutions, a consultancy firm that works with mental health and addiction groups nationwide. “[Programs] may have to shut their doors tomorrow.”

Advertisement

Kessler said he has reviewed numerous grant termination letters from “Salt Lake City to El Paso to Detroit, all over the country.”

Ryan Hampton, the founder of Mobilize Recovery, a national advocacy nonprofit for people in and seeking recovery, told NPR his group lost roughly $500,000 “overnight.”

“Waking up to nearly $2 billion in grant cancellations means front-line providers are forced to cease overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, and peer recovery services immediately, leaving our communities defenseless against a raging crisis,” Hampton said. “This cruelty will be measured in lives lost, as recovery centers shutter and the safety net we built is slashed overnight. We are witnessing the dismantling of our recovery infrastructure in real-time, and the administration will have blood on its hands for every preventable death that follows.”

Copies of the letter sent to two different organizations and reviewed by NPR signal that SAMHSA officials no longer believe the defunded programs align with the Trump administration’s priorities.

The letter points to efforts to reshape the national health system in part by restructuring SAMHSA’s grant program, which “includes terminating some of its … awards.”

Advertisement

According to the letter, grants are terminated as of Jan.13, adding that “costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable.”

The National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors sent a letter to members saying it believes “over 2,000 grants [nationwide] with a total of more than $2 billion” are affected. The group said it’s still working to understand the “full scope” of the cuts.

This move comes on top of deep Medicaid cuts, passed last year by the Republican-controlled Congress, which affect numerous mental health and addiction care providers.

Kessler told NPR he’s hearing alarm from care providers nationwide that the safety net for people experiencing an addiction or mental health crisis could unravel.

“In the short term, there’s going to be severe damage. We’re going to have to scramble,” he said.

Advertisement

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, said the SAMHSA grants pay for lifesaving services.

“From first responders to drug courts, continued federal funding quite literally save lives,” LaBelle said. “The overdose epidemic has been declared a public health emergency and overdose deaths are decreasing. This is no time to pull critical funding.”

Requests for comment from SAMHSA and the Department of Health and Human Services were not immediately returned.

This is a developing story.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Published

on

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

new video loaded: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

transcript

transcript

Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

“Open it. Last warning.” “Do you have an ID on you, ma’am?” “I don’t need an ID to walk around in — In my city. This is my city.” “OK. Do you have some ID then, please?” “I don’t need it.” “If not, we’re going to put you in the vehicle and we’re going to ID you.” “I am a U.S. citizen.” “All right. Can we see an ID, please?” “I am a U.S. citizen.”

Advertisement
Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

By Jamie Leventhal and Jiawei Wang

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Published

on

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Top Justice Department officials defended Lindsey Halligan’s attempts to remain in her position as a U.S. attorney in court filings Tuesday, responding to a federal judge who demanded to know why she was continuing to do so after another judge had found that her appointment was invalid.

The filing, signed by Halligan, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, accused a Trump-appointed judge of “gross abuse of power,” and attempting to “coerce the Executive Branch into conformity.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak, who sits on the federal bench in Richmond, ordered Halligan to provide the basis for her repeated use of the title of U.S. attorney and explain why it “does not constitute a false or misleading statement.” 

Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond to his order and brief on why he “should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification as United States attorney” after she listed herself on an indictment returned in the Eastern District of Virginia in December as a “United States attorney and special attorney.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie had ruled in November that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was invalid and violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and she dismissed the cases Halligan had brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. 

Advertisement

The statute invoked by the Trump administration to appoint Halligan allows an interim U.S. attorney to serve for 120 days. After that, the interim U.S. attorney may be extended by the U.S. district court judges for the region. 

Currie found that the 120-day clock began when Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert was initially appointed in January 2025. Currie concluded that when that timeframe expired, Bondi’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney expired along with it. 

The judge ruled that Halligan had been serving unlawfully since Sept. 22 and concluded that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” had to be set aside. That included the Comey and James indictments.

In their response, Bondi, Blanche and Halligan called Novak’s move an “inquisition,” “insult,” and a “cudgel” against the executive branch. The Justice Department argued that Currie’s ruling in November applied only to the Comey and James cases and did not bar Halligan from calling herself U.S. attorney in other cases that she oversees. 

“Adding insult to error, [Novak’s order] posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers,” the Justice Department wrote.

Advertisement

In his earlier order, Novak said that Currie’s decision “remains binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”

The Justice Department called Currie’s ruling “erroneous”: and said that Halligan is entitled to maintain her position “notwithstanding a single district judge’s contrary view.”

On Monday, the second-highest ranking federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Robert McBride, was fired after he refused to help lead the Justice Department’s prosecution of Comey, a source familiar with the matter told CBS News. McBride is a former longtime federal prosecutor in Kentucky’s Eastern District and had only been on the job as first assistant U.S. attorney for a few months after joining the office in the fall. 

Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who was a member of President Trump’s legal team, and joined Mr. Trump’s White House staff after he won a second term in 2024. In September, Halligan was selected to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor abruptly left the post amid concerns he would be forced out for failing to prosecute James.

Just days after she was appointed, Halligan sought and secured a two-count indictment against Comey alleging he lied to Congress during testimony in September 2020. James, the New York attorney general, was indicted on bank fraud charges in early October. Both pleaded not guilty and pursued several arguments to have their respective indictments dismissed, including the validity of Halligan’s appointment, and claims of vindictive prosecution.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending