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.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has emerged as one of the party’s fastest-rising political figures, drawing national attention for his populist message and outsider image.
But as his profile has grown, so has scrutiny of his past conduct, with controversies ranging from sexually explicit messages and offensive social media posts to a Nazi-linked tattoo and campaign staff upheaval.
PLATNER CONTROVERSIES FUEL SPECULATION ABOUT LITTLE-KNOWN MAINE BALLOT REPLACEMENT PROVISION
In continued clean-up of those scandals, Platner came to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday to huddle with party figures at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters just one week before his primary election.
The Marine veteran and oyster farmer has defended himself against the criticism and retained the support of prominent Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Still, some have questioned whether the allegations could complicate Democrats’ efforts to unseat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate races.
Here’s a look at the major controversies that have engulfed Platner’s campaign.
Explicit text messages and sexting allegations
Senate candidate Graham Platner is under fire, but it was his wife Amy Gertner coming out with a controversial five-minute social media post by the campaign to denounce the ‘attacks’ while she did not deny the allegations of infidelity in a new marriage. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The most recent controversy surrounding Platner stems from reports that he exchanged sexually explicit messages with multiple women during his marriage, an issue that campaign aides were reportedly aware of as his Senate bid was taking shape.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, informed a campaign aide about the text exchanges shortly after he launched his Senate bid as staffers were assessing potential political liabilities.
According to the report, Gertner discovered the messages months after the couple married in 2024 and disclosed their existence before her husband held a campaign rally alongside progressive Sen. Sanders. The campaign told Politico that the aide viewed the matter as a private issue between the couple and did not raise concerns about it publicly.
SENATE CANDIDATE GRAHAM PLATNER SENT EXPLICIT TEXTS TO MULTIPLE WOMEN WHILE MARRIED, WIFE SAYS: REPORT
Platner’s campaign later confirmed the existence of the text exchanges to Politico.
He also told Fox News Digital in a statement: “Amy and I went through something hard — because of me. We did the work, and I’m grateful for her every hour of every day.”
“I’ve learned throughout this campaign is that people don’t care about gossip or headlines, they care that you’re fighting for their hospitals, their paycheck, their kids… Our opponents want politics to be empty of content and empty of actual change — and beating that is exactly what our movement is about,” he added.
In a statement to the Journal, Gertner criticized the disclosure of the information, saying she had shared “deeply personal details” about her marriage with someone she considered a friend, only to see those details become public.
She revealed that the two attended couple’s counseling, worked through the issues in their marriage and have since emerged as a stronger couple.
“I know who Graham is. I know the man I married and the husband he has been to me on the best and the worst days of my life,” Gertner said. “That hasn’t changed, and it won’t.”
Nazi-linked tattoo
Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, points to a covered tattoo that was previously recognized as a Nazi symbol during an interview in Portland, Maine, on Oct. 22, 2025. (WGME via AP)
Platner’s campaign also faced intense scrutiny after it was revealed he once had a skull-and-crossbones tattoo on his chest closely resembling the “Totenkopf” symbol used by Hitler’s SS paramilitary forces.
The Maine Democrat said he got the tattoo during a “night of drinking” while on leave in Croatia in 2007 as a Marine and claimed he was entirely unaware of its meaning at the time.
In an Instagram video posted in May, Platner elaborated on the tattoo’s origins. He explained that he merely selected the design from a flash tattoo wall while “carousing” with fellow Marines in Split, Croatia.
“We thought it looked cool,” he downplayed.
Platner said he was later “appalled” to learn the image resembled a Nazi symbol, arguing that his life and career have been defined by opposition to fascism, racism and Nazism. He also noted that he was never questioned about the tattoo during his military service.
MAINE DEM SENATE HOPEFUL BACKED BY BERNIE SANDERS APOLOGIZES FOR NAZI-STYLE TATTOO, VOWS TO STAY IN RACE
Rather than undergo removal, Platner said he chose to cover the tattoo because tattoo removal services were not readily available near his rural Maine home.
“Going to a tattoo removal place is going to take a while,” he told The Associated Press. “I wanted this thing off my body.”
The symbol was ultimately covered with a tattoo featuring a Celtic knot and images of dogs, which Platner said were meant to honor his family pets.
Deleted Reddit posts reveal offensive comments
U.S. Senate candidate from Maine Graham Platner speaks during a campaign event on May 17, 2026, in Portland, Maine. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The keystone scrutiny Platner has faced during his bid stemmed from thousands of now-deleted Reddit posts that resurfaced after he launched his Senate campaign.
In posts first reported by CNN and Politico, Platner referred to himself as a “communist” and “socialist” and endorsed the slogan “all cops are b—–ds.”
In other posts, he argued that those who “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history” and said that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.”
DELETED POSTS URGING VIOLENCE HAUNT DEMOCRATIC SENATE HOPEFUL IN MAINE RACE
The posts under his since-retired username “P-hustle” were deleted before Platner announced his Democratic Senate bid in August.
The candidate has since addressed the posts multiple times, telling CNN and Politico that he was “f—ing around on the internet” during a period when he felt “lost and very disillusioned with our government who sent me overseas to watch my friends die.”
“I made dumb jokes and picked fights,” Platner said. “But of course I’m not a socialist. I’m a small business owner, a Marine Corps veteran, and a retired s—poster.”
In the posts Platner made crude comments about masturbating in port-a-potties and claimed a U.S. service member who took enemy fire in Afghanistan “didn’t deserve to live.”
GRAHAM PLATNER VOWS TO ‘COME AFTER’ BEZOS AS SENATE HOPEFUL ESCALATES BILLIONAIRE TAX FIGHT
The controversies have done little to erode Platner’s standing within the Democratic Party as he has continued to attract national attention and grassroots support in the Democratic primary bid to challenge Sen. Collins for her seat.
Since former Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills halted her campaign in April, much of the party establishment has consolidated behind Platner, and national Democrats have continued to support his candidacy despite the flurry of scandals.
The steady stream of allegations and past controversies has also drawn attention to a little-known provision in Maine election law that allows political parties to replace a nominee under certain circumstances after a primary election.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Under state law, a candidate who wins a primary and subsequently withdraws by 5 p.m. on July 13 can be replaced by a nominee selected by party officials. Any replacement candidate must then be chosen by 5 p.m. on July 27.
There is currently no indication that Platner plans to withdraw from the race, and the Democratic hopeful has repeatedly vowed to continue his campaign. Still, the provision has drawn renewed interest as questions persist about whether additional revelations could complicate his candidacy.
Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Politics
Commentary: Bass clears first hurdle, but if Pratt holds off Raman, the mayoral race could be a holy war
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass made what sounded like a victory speech Tuesday night.
Councilmember Nithya Raman made what sounded almost like a concession speech.
And former reality TV star Spencer Pratt relayed a message from the heavens.
“Well, obviously God wanted five more months of me exposing all the failures of our mayor, so it’s gonna be a fun ride,” Pratt said. “I hope she’s ready.”
Assuming Pratt holds on to one of the two spots in the Nov. 3 general election as the final votes are tallied in the next few days, the smart money will be on Bass, for reasons I’ll get into in a moment.
But the supreme being and patron of all pontiffs has to be considered a wild card. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that an incumbent mayor in the City of Angels would be running against a challenger whose campaign manager is God Almighty.
So here we go. We could be in for one of the more remarkable electoral adventures in city history, with a complete novice and MAGA conservative going up against a liberal career politician in a deep-blue city and state full of people who are tired of hearing excuses from Democrats. (If Raman ends up ousting Pratt, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. But it’s not my fault. The devil made me do it.)
If you intend to follow closely, as of course you should, maybe you can help me count the number of times Pratt plays the faith card. I went to St. Peter Martyr School and attended the church by the same name, and I don’t recall ever hearing a nun or a priest drop God’s name as often as Pratt does.
In fact, I just watched a clip of Pratt talking to Fox News TV host and Donald Trump disciple Kayleigh McEnany, and over the course of 1 minute and 52 seconds, he mentioned God or Jesus 10 times.
“Thankfully, I married an angel who was very connected with Jesus and has brought me to the light,” Pratt said of his wife and former reality TV co-star Heidi Montag. “It’s been very empowering to just pray and just be on his path and just say, ‘God, if you want me to save these animals, save these humans and protect my city, just keep putting me in the place where I can do that.’”
Is he running for mayor or cardinal?
Look, I totally respect your average true believer. But I’m not entirely comfortable with a mayor who might be sitting around City Hall waiting for signs and smoke signals rather than knowing what to do on his own.
God has a lot on his plate. He might be busy multiplying fishes and loaves so people don’t go hungry thanks to the president’s tariffs and warmongering. Is he going to rush to answer a prayer for guidance about underfunded parks or broken sidewalks in Los Angeles?
How did we get here, you ask?
Well, Pratt is an AI creation, in a way. A composite of sorts. You combine the forces of social media, political rebellion, second-rate celebrity obsession and the Peter Principle, and here’s a little Trump puppet walking around L.A. like he’s the chosen one.
Add to that the very real essence of his appeal to some voters:
Los Angeles has problems. Big problems that don’t get fixed quickly enough or at all, and Pratt represents the angry voter who wants to know why City Hall can’t do better and where all the money went. He’s absolutely right when he says we shouldn’t have people living on the streets, using drugs on the streets and dying on the streets.
But if Pratt is in the general election rather than Raman, we’re in for a national media circus rather than a summit on solutions. Raman is well-versed on matters of relevance and could have pushed back against Bass in substantive, detailed ways. On the other hand, as Pratt has fairly argued, Raman headed City Council’s homelessness committee, so isn’t she partly to blame for the failures she tried to pin on Bass?
As for Pratt’s policy chops, he has not responded to my offers of a get-together. Absent that, and given his careful avoidance of local reporters who know their stuff, I read his platform on his campaign website and I can tell you that while he touches on many of the right issues — public safety, fiscal integrity, homelessness — attention to detail and depth of knowledge are not God-given strengths.
Maybe Pratt can actually deliver on his promise of a “treatment-led recovery model that addresses mental illness and addiction as the primary drivers of chronic homelessness.” But that would require an act of God (which I suppose is possible given their relationship), because those matters are primarily under the direction of the county, not the city.
This is the main problem here. Bass was beatable, and could have been pushed by a serious challenger to do better.
In the last election, Rick Caruso gave her a scare. That was partly because he had some depth on the issues, he was a successful businessman and philanthropist, he had served on the police commission and the water and power board, he had built relationships across the city and, along with his family, he had poured time and millions of dollars into underserved communities.
In this election, it looks as though Bass could get lucky and face off against a guy who lost his house in the Palisades fire, saw a few homeless encampments through his car window, and decided he wanted to be mayor. Some might have questioned his hubris, but only before learning that he was on a mission from God.
If you’re keeping count, that’s nine mentions of God so far in this column.
One more for the tie, with an eye toward five more months of campaign fodder.
Thank you, God.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., suddenly found himself on the defensive at a budget hearing on Wednesday when, amid levying accusations of the Trump administration’s “corrupt” dealings, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent fired back by bringing Wyden’s son’s investments into the exchange.
“We would like to hear what Adam Wyden and Jeffrey Epstein talked about,” Bessent said, referring to unearthed emails drawing a connection between the senator’s son and the disgraced financier.
“Did your son and Jeffrey Epstein talk about pole dancing as he begged him for money?”
The moment continues the political fallout for the many names associated with Epstein that — despite not amounting to proof of wrongdoing — continue to prompt embarrassment and scandal at even the smallest mention.
TOP FIERY MOMENTS AS DEMOCRATS CLASH WITH TREASURY SECRETARY BESSENT IN CHAOTIC HILL HEARINGS
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, left, pictured along Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore, right. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Epstein, a former financier, died while in prison on charges of sex trafficking minors in 2019, leaving behind questions of whether he facilitated illegal sexual encounters for his vast network of rich and powerful figures.
Amid public demands for transparency on the matter, the Department of Justice released troves of documents on Epstein late last year, unveiling a slew of new names with all manner of ties to the infamous figure ranging from purely innocuous to alarming.
Among them, emails surfaced indicating that Adam Wyden, Ron Wyden’s son, went to Epstein, hoping to gain his support for a business venture.
UNEARTHED EMAILS REVEAL DEM SENATOR’S SON WANTED EPSTEIN TO JOIN HIS FUND: ‘ENJOYED OUR CONVERSATION’
Sen. Ron Wyden leaves a Senate Democratic meeting at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 3, 2025, as the federal government shuts down after Congress and the White House failed to reach a funding deal. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“Jeffrey, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation and hope my passion and dedication for my business came through in the meeting. I live and breathe this business and take my returns, integrity and reputation quite seriously,” the younger Wyden said in an email in April 2016.
“I intensely appreciate like-minded individuals and would very much look forward to having you join us at the fund.”
The emails came after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution in Florida in 2008.
It’s unclear what the business venture discussed by Adam Wyden and Epstein may have been or what, specifically, had been discussed in their conversations.
Even so, Bessent reminded viewers that the younger Wyden had a history of investing in off-color markets at Wednesday’s hearing.
DEMOCRATS ARE HAMMERING REPUBLICANS ON EPSTEIN, BUT ONE SENATOR BRUSHED OFF THE ISSUE YEARS AGO
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent addresses a press conference in Rosenbad after trade talks between the U.S. and China concluded in Stockholm, Sweden, on July 29, 2025. (Magnus Lejhall/TT News Agency/AFP via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Your son’s largest investment position was Rick’s Cabaret,” Bessent said, referring to a series of strip clubs.
Wyden, who has widely panned the Trump administration and its many officials for their own connections to Epstein, didn’t respond to Bessent’s jabs.
-
Lifestyle7 minutes agoHow having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet
-
Technology19 minutes agoAmazon develops a warehouse robot workers can speak to
-
World22 minutes agoAlbino buffalo nicknamed ‘Donald Trump’ becomes sensation at Bangladesh’s national zoo for its blond hair
-
Politics27 minutes agoThe growing list of controversies threatening Democrat Graham Platner’s Maine Senate bid
-
Health34 minutes agoNew cancer vaccine delivers stunning result against one of the deadliest skin cancers
-
Sports37 minutes agoFan disrupts NBA Finals Game 1 while trying to take selfie with Spurs’ Victor Wembanyama
-
Business49 minutes agoHow Google’s 32-million mosquito project could change California’s battle against dengue
-
Entertainment51 minutes agoAfter ‘Barbie’ success, Mattel looks to He-Man for another box-office lift
