News
Legal experts “worried” DC appeal delay could mean Trump “losing that battle but winning the war”
Legal observers are getting restless awaiting a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity claim in the D.C. election subversion case.
Proceedings in the case have been paused indefinitely for more than 50 days after Trump appealed U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling rejecting his claim that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution for actions while in office.
A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel heard the appeal three weeks ago but has yet to issue a ruling. Any ruling is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Even if Trump’s immunity claim is rejected, “the protracted delays help the former president, whose strategy across his various trials has been to drag them out for as long as possible,” Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein wrote. “Lengthy delays in his federal criminal cases create the possibility that, if he wins the presidency this November, Trump could avoid the charges altogether by having the Justice Department end the prosecutions or perhaps even by pardoning himself.”
Chutkan scheduled the trial for March 4 but suggested that the case is likely to be delayed in a recent order barring special counsel Jack Smith from filing substantive motions in the case until the appeal is resolved. If the D.C. Circuit and then the Supreme Court take additional weeks or months to deliver a final ruling, it could push Trump’s trial to the summer or fall, Politico reported, noting that at that point Trump and his allies would “exert intense pressure” to postpone the trial until after the election.
“The timing of a decision by the panel will indeed be a critical determinant of whether the case can go forward expeditiously,” Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor, told Politico.
Richman said Trump’s immunity claim is “outlandish” and is likely to be rejected but “quite a few stars would have to align before the trial can proceed.”
The delay has alarmed some legal experts.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, wrote that he and his podcast co-host Mary McCord, a Georgetown law professor and former DOJ official, are “worried” that the D.C. immunity appeal “could result in Trump losing that battle but winning the war, by avoiding a trial before the election.”
MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin suggested that there may be some disagreement among the three appellate judges about what to do with the case.
“My guess is these three judges have a general agreement between them that Donald Trump should not be immune from prosecution in the federal election interference case,” Rubin said Wednesday. “How they get there, on the other hand, is a different matter. And in the ideal world, all three of them would like to be in total agreement. They’d like to issue what’s called a per curiam agreement, where all three of them get to sign on, but of course, there are many different paths to getting there.”
Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, expressed opposition to taking up the case on an expedited basis and suggested the case could be sent back to the trial court for more analysis of whether Trump’s actions could be considered official acts.
“One judge suggested during an argument that what really matters to her is the allegations against Trump are ones that affect his duties, or that affect him in the campaign capacity, and suggested almost that you really had to parse the indictment,” Rubin explained. “That would be the worst of all worlds, because that can mean sending the case back to Judge Chutkan to determine which aspects of the indictment are worthy of immunity and which are not. And that could even further elongate case beyond the appellate process.
“So I think that’s behind the scenes, the two judges would like to get there, in an easier way more akin to Judge Chutkan, are really putting some pressure on Judge Henderson to try to get on board and see if they could do something unanimously,” she added.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
CNN legal analyst Elliott Williams, a former federal prosecutor, predicted that the judges are likely trying to reach a “unanimous decision.”
“Based on the oral argument they all seem to be in an agreement,” Williams said. “They’ll probably try to get a 3-0 opinion and that’s bulletproof once that goes to the Supreme Court,” he added.
Read more
about Trump’s D.C. case
News
With a Round of 32 spot already clinched, the U.S. takes on Turkey in the World Cup
Folarin Balogun (r) of the U.S. celebrates scoring his team’s second goal with Weston McKennie during their World Cup match against Paraguay on June 12 in Inglewood, Calif. The U.S. defeated Paraguay and, later, Australia. The U.S. wraps up group play against Turkey on Thursday evening. Win, lose or draw, the U.S. has already won its group and will advance to the knockout round.
Richard Heathcote/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Richard Heathcote/Getty Images
INGLEWOOD, Calif. — For the U.S. men’s national soccer team, a loss in Thursday night’s FIFA World Cup game against Turkey wouldn’t change anything.
A win, though, would be history.

The squad’s earlier wins over Paraguay and Australia, plus two losses by Turkey to the same teams, mean the Americans have already won their group and clinched a favorable path in the knockout round, no matter the outcome of Thursday’s game.
But the American men have never won more than two games in a single World Cup. A third win would be new territory for this team, which has not been shy about its aspirations in this tournament and its confidence about living up to them.
“The group stage is not done yet. We want to end it the right way. We want to end it the way we came into it and continue to build off of the momentum that we’ve been creating,” said defender Mark McKenzie, speaking to reporters Wednesday.

Because the outcome of the game does not affect knockout-round placement, the U.S. can rest key starters who will enter the match with a yellow card. For those players — defenders Antonee Robinson and Chris Richards, midfielder Tyler Adams and forward Folarin Balogun — picking up a second yellow card against Turkey would result in a suspension in the Round of 32. (Any single yellow cards will be cleared after the group stage concludes.)
The team could also choose to ease in forward Christian Pulisic, who is expected to be available for the game after sitting out the U.S.-Australia game with a minor calf injury.
Turkey had come into the World Cup with high expectations. With talented young stars like the 21-year-old attackers Arda Güler of Real Madrid and Kenan Yildiz of Juventus, the team was thought by many — from analysts to the players themselves — to be a dark horse capable of a deep run.
Instead, they were eliminated last week when their loss to Paraguay followed the U.S. win over Australia, prompting apologies from Turkey’s despondent players to their fans after the game.
On Wednesday, Yildiz echoed that apology and promised to “give our best” in Thursday’s game against the U.S. “We had high expectations. I know because all of our country was supporting us and thought we will come very far,” Yildiz said. “Hopefully for the next game we can make a good result and go out with pride.”
The U.S. and Turkey last faced each other in an international friendly in June 2025, which Turkey won 2-1. The U.S. roster for that game was missing several key players, including Pulisic, Robinson, Balogun and midfielder Weston McKennie.
“We had a really young team, but we went out there and put in a good performance. I don’t think the result necessarily reflected how we played,” Richards said. “Whoever’s on the field, I know we’re going to go out there and give 110 percent.”
News
Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote
A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.
Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.
The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.
Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.
In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.
“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.
A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.
“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”
Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.
The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.
Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.
In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.
On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.
The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.
In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.
Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
News
Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries
new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries
transcript
transcript
Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.
-
“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”
By Julie Yoon
June 24, 2026
-
Detroit, MI14 minutes agoWould Detroit Lions Salary Cap Be Wrecked If Terrion Arnold Gets Cut?
-
San Francisco, CA24 minutes agoTwo more Presidio Heights homes reach $10M range as luxury supply dwindles
-
Dallas, TX29 minutes agoOne Dallas Cowboys Contract That Will Age Poorly in 2026
-
Miami, FL36 minutes agoLive updates: Today’s South Florida News
-
Boston, MA39 minutes agoA federal judge in Boston has blocked parts of Trump’s order to limit voting by mail
-
Denver, CO44 minutes ago
Denver Transplant Games sets Guinness World Record for most living donors, recipients in one place at one time
-
Seattle, WA51 minutes ago17-year-old boy shot in High Point, multiple suspects seen running from crashed car
-
San Diego, CA54 minutes agoFoodie forecast: A new cafe opens in La Jolla’s Arcade building