Connect with us

Politics

Column: Will Trump be tried for Jan. 6? After Supreme Court arguments, it's more uncertain than ever

Published

on

Column: Will Trump be tried for Jan. 6? After Supreme Court arguments, it's more uncertain than ever

For those rightly concerned about the timing of Donald Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, Thursday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court gave plenty of reasons for worry. Moreover, the court’s conservative majority seemed inclined to define presidential immunity from prosecution in a way that could undermine some of the charges in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment.

Much of the court’s questioning went well beyond the immediate issue of Trump’s immunity for the criminal acts alleged. The court’s conservatives focused almost exclusively on abstract questions of immunity for future presidents rather than the charges against the former president. Even the more moderate members of the conservative majority seemed preoccupied with the difficulty of drawing the line between official and unofficial acts, assuming that the former deserve extensive protection from prosecution.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett read a litany of acts from the indictment and asked Trump’s lawyer whether they were official or not. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. indicated that the line between public and private presidential conduct is hard to draw, saying he was concerned that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals “did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we’re talking about or what documents we’re talking about.”

At best, the court’s questioning augurs an opinion setting out general principles of immunity and necessitating a remand to the lower courts to apply the justices’ guidance. As Justice Neil M. Gorsuch put it, “We’re writing a rule for the ages.” That would add further delay to a schedule that already seems to be putting a trial shortly before or beyond the November election.

And that wasn’t even the most serious implication for Smith’s case.

Advertisement

The conservative justices’ questioning of Michael Dreeben, the special counsel’s well-regarded Supreme Court specialist, was sharp and fast. And their questions to both sides suggested they might conclude that inquiring into a president’s motives for certain acts would violate the constitutional separation of powers. That would point to a decision requiring the courts to set aside all evidence of a president’s malign intent.

If motive has to be disregarded in determining whether the president’s actions are official or not, it could undermine much of the case against Trump — including, for example, his brazen attempt to strong-arm the Department of Justice into falsely informing Georgia officials that the state’s election results were flawed.

Such a limitation might even provide immunity in the hypothetical extreme proposed during arguments before the D.C. Circuit: a president ordering Navy Seals to assassinate a political opponent. The force of that example is that it shows how an official act could have a patently malign motive.

As Justice Elena Kagan interjected in reference to the implications of her colleagues’ questions and Trump lawyer John Sauer’s response: “You’re asking us to say that a president is entitled … for total personal gain, to use the trappings of his office.” Exactly right.

Gorsuch threw another lifeline to Trump’s lawyer, asking whether he would accept a definition of official acts like the one in the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Blassingame vs. Trump, which concerned presidential immunity from civil suits. That case drew a distinction between Trump’s acts as an officeholder and as an office-seeker. Applying it to the criminal case would likely immunize Trump for some of the conduct in the indictment, in particular his allegedly corrupt use of the Justice Department, though he would presumably remain on the hook for political conduct such as organizing false electors.

Advertisement

It got worse for the prosecution. More or less out of nowhere, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested that one of the charges against Trump, conspiracy to defraud the United States, relies on a statute that is so broad and vague that it could be misused by future prosecutors against future presidents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. jumped in to second the suggestion, taking up a criticism of the prosecution that Trump’s lawyers hadn’t even raised.

Since the court just heard arguments in a separate case that could invalidate two of the four charges against Trump — those under a federal obstruction statute — an opinion invalidating another charge could force Smith to soldier on with only one remaining charge against Trump, conspiracy against rights. That charge relies on the electorate’s right to have votes counted, which is a somewhat indirect approach to accountability for Trump’s pernicious post-election conduct.

That’s not all. Kavanaugh also raised the Trump team’s suggestion that perhaps Congress should have to make a “clear statement” of intent to apply any criminal law to the president, a stratagem the court previously conjured to deal with separation-of-powers concerns. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that it would in effect excuse a president for violations of most of the federal code.

Dreeben hardly had time to make his points until the end of the nearly three-hour argument, when Kagan gave him some room to do so. Kagan also asked the special counsel’s representative a friendly question getting at the possibility that the court could limit its decision to the charges against Trump to permit the trial to go forward expeditiously. But the odds that the court will take that guidance now look extremely slim.

Going into Thursday’s showdown, the critical question was whether the court’s opinion would permit the trial to go forward without further proceedings. In the wake of the arguments, that seems more unlikely than ever. Indeed, the court’s questions raised the additional alarming prospect that it could confer the kind of expansive presidential immunity that would further weaken the constitutional principle that a president is not a king.

Advertisement

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

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Coalition of 25 states sues Trump admin over Medicaid work rule designed to prevent fraud

Published

on

Coalition of 25 states sues Trump admin over Medicaid work rule designed to prevent fraud

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A coalition of blue states and jurisdictions is suing the Trump administration over new Medicaid work requirements designed to prevent fraud, arguing the policy unlawfully restricts access to health care coverage.

The lawsuit, filed by at least 25 states and the District of Columbia, alleges the newly implemented Interim Final Rule (IFR) — issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) — violates federal law and departs from Congress’ original intent and early CMS guidance. 

The IFR requires certain individuals to provide documentation proving they are exempt from Medicaid rules requiring enrollees to work, volunteer or attend school due to severe medical conditions. 

Before the rule was issued in early June, highly vulnerable Medicaid recipients were set to be automatically exempt from such requirements. Agencies would have granted those exemptions by reviewing existing health records, without requiring individuals to complete additional paperwork ahead of the requirements taking effect in January 2027.

Advertisement

DR. OZ UNVEILS MEDICAID OVERHAUL, CLAMPS DOWN ON $2B FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND MANDATES WORK FOR ABLE-BODIED

Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, discussed a number of healthcare topics during a news conference with reporters on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The lawsuit names Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which issued the IFR, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), as defendants.

Oz previously argued that such guardrails are designed to prevent programs from being “defrauded into a turmoil,” adding that able-bodied enrollees receiving American tax dollars should contribute to society. 

“If you can work, you should get up and work,” Oz said. 

Advertisement

“If we put guardrails around these programs, we’ll allow them to thrive. I’m here because I love Medicaid. The president has already said he loves and cherishes Medicaid and Medicare. … We cannot allow these programs to be defrauded into a turmoil that they cannot pull up from. If we love these programs, we will make the difficult decisions.”

The new rule would require able-bodied individuals to work 20 hours a week, volunteer, or pursue education while enrolled in free healthcare coverage.

Fox News reached out to the White House and HHS for comment. 

FED AUDIT, EMERGENCY MEDICAID UNDERCUT DEMS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT HEALTH COVERAGE

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during an interview. ((Photo by Jason Mendez/Getty Images))

Advertisement

The plaintiffs involve California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Kentucky. 

“People with disabilities, patients in the middle of cancer treatment, or those struggling with another serious or complex health condition, shouldn’t be at risk of losing the care that helps maintain their health,” the suit stated. 

REPUBLICANS PRAISE ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’S’ WORK REQUIREMENT FOR MEDICAID: ‘WE’VE GOT TO GET BACK TO WORK’

According to the suit, CMS’s own projections estimate that 2.3 million enrollees will lose Medicaid coverage in the first year alone. 

The agency also estimates that 7% of enrollees who are working or qualify for an exemption will lose coverage due to confusing paperwork requirements, strict deadlines or missing documentation, according to the document. 

Advertisement

Beginning in 2028, enrollees who do not have immediate medical records on file would be limited to a single opportunity to submit a “self-attestation” form declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they are too sick to work.

Under previous guidance, enrollees were allowed to use self-attestation multiple times as their medical needs evolved.

An examination bed sits inside a medical clinic. (AP Photo/Matt York)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In addition, plaintiffs said the new rules would force states to abandon automated systems they have already invested in and instead build more complex and costly manual review processes. 

Advertisement

As the Aug. 31 deadline to mail notices to Medicaid enrollees approaches, the plaintiffs are seeking a temporary stay and a preliminary injunction to block CMS and HHS from enforcing the rules. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Bill to ban sex offenders from running for office fails in California senate committee

Published

on

Bill to ban sex offenders from running for office fails in California senate committee

California Democratic senators failed to advance a proposal Tuesday that would have barred registered sex offenders from running for office.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) voted against Assembly Bill 2753, while fellow Sens. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) and Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) abstained from a vote that ultimately failed 2-1-2 in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Committee.

The committee’s lone Republican, Steve Choi (R-Irvine), and Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) voted in favor of the bill, which is likely dead because it failed to get support from a majority of the five-member panel.

AB 2753 could be reviewed in a floor session Thursday, but staff from the office of Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria (D-Fresno), who authored the bill, are conceding that’s unlikely.

Advertisement

The defeat comes on the heels of unanimous support, including a 60-0 vote in favor on the Assembly Floor on May 7.

“I am deeply disappointed and disheartened after the Senate Elections Committee has failed to advance AB 2753, a bill that would have prohibited any registered sex offender in the State of California from running for local or state public office,” Soria said in a statement.

The bill’s wording said the legislation would “prohibit a person from being a candidate for, or elected to, any state or local elective office if the person has ever been required to register as a sex offender.”

Inquiries to the offices of Sens. Wiener, Umberg and Allen were not immediately returned.

Sex offenses in California are broken up into three tiers. First-tier offenses call for a minimum of 10 years placement on the sex offender registry. Second-tier offenses call for a minimum of 20 years and third tier crimes could result in a lifetime on the registry.

Advertisement

The types of offenses for each tier vary. Tier 1 offenses range from indecent exposure to misdemeanor child pornography and sexual battery. Tier 2 includes incest and penetration with a foreign object, and Tier 3 includes felony possession of child pornography, rape and pimping and pandering of a minor.

Wiener asked for amendments to the bill during the bill’s review and in the committee meeting, including that the lifetime ban only be applied to Tier 3 members.

He pointed to committee analysis of the bill that could affect so-called “Romeo and Juliet” couples — those close in age, for instance with one partner being 19 and the other being 17. If the younger partner sent sexually explicit digital content to the older partner (a misdemeanor), this law could ban the older partner from public office for life.

There were also concerns listed in the analysis that the registry, which dates back to 1947, could include LGBTQ+ offenders from decades ago who were convicted of offenses that are no longer crimes.

Wiener mentioned in the committee meeting civil rights strategist and fighter Bayard Rustin being placed on the California sex offender’s registry list after being arrested by Pasadena Police for having consensual sex with another man in 1953.

Advertisement

“Without the amendment contained in the analysis, I will be voting ‘no’ on this bill and recommending that the committee vote ‘no,’” Wiener said at the committee hearing.

He added that the sex offender list was “not punishment,” but instead “a tool for law enforcement to monitor who may potentially cause a risk.”

While Soria agreed to one bill amendment, she did not accept other provisions, including the elimination of lifetime bans on Tier 1 or 2 offenses.

“The bottom line is this: I was not willing to make additional amendments to this bill,” she said. “I made a promise to my community that I would do everything in my power to ensure they would never have to go through something like this again. Accepting additional amendments to this bill would have jeopardized that promise.”

Some of the impetus behind her bill revolved around the June 2 Fresno City Council election. Registered sex offender Rene Campos fell short of the necessary votes in his bid to run for Central Valley Council.

Advertisement

He was charged with possession of child pornography in 2018 and hosted his campaign kickoff in front of an elementary school.

Nelson Esparza, Fresno City Council President, spoke at the Senate Elections and Constitutional Committee meeting in favor of AB 2753.

“My office received dozens of calls from our residents asking how this could be allowed,” Esparza said of Campos’ candidacy. “AB 2753 closes this loophole.”

It’s unclear if this bill will be reintroduced next year at least at the Assembly level, as Soria is running for the state senate in November.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Mamdani ripped for claiming victory over capitalism after NYC’s multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded bailout

Published

on

Mamdani ripped for claiming victory over capitalism after NYC’s multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded bailout

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

New York City’s mayor is again under fire after spewing outlandish claims that his socialist policies are to credit for a balanced budget in the Big Apple, just after the city received a multi-billion dollar bailout from the state.

“In January, our administration inherited a $12 billion budget deficit — a fiscal crisis greater than the Great Recession,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a Tuesday post on X announcing that the debt had been cleared.

“We balanced the budget by taxing the rich and making government more efficient,” Mamdani continued. “We did not balance this budget on the backs of working people, and we never will.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks during a primary-night watch party for NYC Congressional candidate Claire Valdez at 99 Scott Studio on June 23, 2026 in the East Williamsburg neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Advertisement

MAMDANI ALLOCATES $500K FOR REPARATIONS TALKS AS NYC FACES $5.4B DEFICIT

But the real reason the budget it balanced is because the city was handed $1.5 billion by the state of New York in January — funded by working class taxpayers across the state — as part of a multi-year plan to bail out the fiscally-challenged city. In late May, the city received another $4 billion.

Of the combined $8 billion provided to the city’s bailout fund under former Mayor Eric Adams’ tenure and now Mamdani’s mayorship, $5 billion was directly earmarked for the city to address fiscal measures. This includes allowing city government to defer pension contributions to close the budgetary gap.

Mamdani’s claims about socialist policies producing results — and his failure to mention the massive bailouts provided by taxpayer dollars — did not fly on social media.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul holds media availability press conference and makes an announcement on abortion rights at the office on 633 3rd Avenue. (Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Advertisement

MAMDANI ALLOCATES $500K FOR REPARATIONS TALKS AS NYC FACES $5.4B DEFICIT

“This is a lie,” independent journalist Nick Shirley said in a reply to the mayor.

“You balanced the budget by borrowing billions from the NY state government which pushed back pension payments, so you literally took money from ‘the backs of hardworking people.’ Don’t get it twisted,” he added.

Commentator and journalist Nick Sortor also flamed the mayor over the loan and his classification of the bailout.

“Are you saying New Yorkers can ‘balance their budgets’ by taking out massive credit card loans?” he asked sarcastically.

Advertisement

Independent journalist Nick Shirley sat down for an interview with Riley Gaines as part of the launch of Outkick’s “The Riley Gaines Show.” (OutKick)

BROADCAST NETWORKS TOUT MAMDANI’S VICTORIES, PROCLAIM SOCIALISM IS ‘RESONATING’

“Mamdani balanced the budget by taking money from Albany, who in turn taxed Rochester and Buffalo” another social media user said. “That’s who is paying for all of Mamdani’s free crap.”

In a press conference earlier in the day, Mamdani claimed victory over capitalism.

“Throughout this process I have been reminded of the words of the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek: ‘if socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.’”

Advertisement

A man sleeps on the E train, one of the subway lines most utilized by homeless New Yorkers for shelter, in Queens, New York, on Monday, April 7, 2025. (Victor J. Blue for The Washington Post/Getty Images)

After the Republican National Convention (RNC) posted that clip, Mamdani also faced ridicule for that.

“It always looks good at first until the chickens come home to roost,” one person replied.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“He’ll soon ‘deliver’ bread lines instead,” said another.

Advertisement

Mamdani’s office did not return Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending