Connect with us

Politics

How Trial Delays Could Pay Off for Trump

Published

on

How Trial Delays Could Pay Off for Trump

Former President Donald J. Trump faces four criminal trials this year, but delays are already underway. The odds are that no more than one or two will finish before voters choose the next president.

Trump’s trials are unlikely to happen as scheduled

The trials, which may require a couple of months or more, are unlikely to happen concurrently because defendants typically have to attend criminal trials in person.

And delays are a critical piece of the Trump legal and campaign strategy, which is to protect his march toward the Republican nomination and avoid a jury before November.

The first case in line — the federal Jan. 6 case in Washington that accuses Mr. Trump of seeking to overturn the 2020 election — is already facing delays from its scheduled start date in early March. The former president is claiming immunity from the charges and his appeal is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Advertisement

If the court moves quickly or elects not to hear the case immediately, the federal Jan. 6 trial could still proceed in the late spring, in one scenario.

This would most likely delay the trial in the Manhattan criminal case in New York, which charges Mr. Trump with making payments to cover up a sex scandal during the 2016 presidential campaign. That trial is scheduled for late March, but the judge could defer to the federal Jan. 6 trial, which is widely viewed as more consequential to the current election.

Here’s how the scheduling could come together.

Two trials could begin before Election Day

A conviction and sentencing in either case before the nomination or election would not make Mr. Trump ineligible to run, but could sway voters or the Republican nominating committee.

Advertisement

But delays into November could give Mr. Trump, if elected, the opportunity to dismiss a federal case like Jan. 6, or seek protection from the state cases, like the Manhattan criminal case, under a long-held rule that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted.

How swiftly the Supreme Court responds to Mr. Trump’s immunity appeal will play a critical role in when these trials start.

In a second scenario in which the Supreme Court moves more slowly to weigh the charges against Mr. Trump in the federal Jan. 6 case, that trial might not begin until the summer or fall, pushing any conviction or sentencing close to or beyond Election Day.

Experts say that the Manhattan criminal trial would then most likely run around the time it was originally planned in late March.

How Trump’s delays could push the Jan. 6 case to summer or beyond

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s two other criminal trials may be delayed until late 2024 or even 2025.

A federal case that charges Mr. Trump with mishandling classified documents is tentatively scheduled for May 20, but the judge, a Trump appointee, could change that date at a March hearing.

A fourth case alleging Mr. Trump’s involvement in 2020 election interference in Georgia is not formally scheduled, though the prosecutor has said she wants to start sometime in August. But Mr. Trump is also claiming presidential immunity in this case, and he is seeking to have the district attorney who brought the charges, Fani T. Willis, thrown off the case.

But if Mr. Trump becomes president, these trials may be forced off the calendar. As president again, Mr. Trump could seek to order his Justice Department to shut down the federal classified documents case and claim sitting president protection from criminal prosecution in the Georgia election interference case.

Advertisement

Politics

Read the Supreme Court’s Shadow Papers

Published

on

Read the Supreme Court’s Shadow Papers

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN

Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20343

February 7, 2016

Memorandum to the Conference

Re: 15A773 West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A776 Basin Elec. Power Cooperative, et al. v. EPA, et al. 15A787 Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A778 Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al.

-

15A793 North Dakota v. EPA, et al.

I agree with Steve that we should direct the States to seek an extension from the EPA before asking this Court to intervene. We could also include, at the end of such an order, language along the lines of the following, to encourage the D. C. Circuit to act expeditiously in its resolution of this matter: “In light of that court’s agreement to consider this case on an expedited schedule, we are confident that it will [or even: we urge it to] render a decision with appropriate dispatch.” See Doe v. Gonzales, 546 U. S. 1301, 1308 (2005) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers); Kemp v. Smith, 463 U. S. 1344, 1345 (1983) (Powell, J., in chambers); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U. S. 1304, 1305, n. 2 (1973) (Marshall, J., in chambers).

The unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause. The applicants ask us to enjoin a regulation pending initial review in the court of appeals. As we often say, “we are a court of review, not of first view.” See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718 n. 7 (2005); cf. Doe, 546 U. S., at 1308 (“Re- spect for the assessment of the Court of Appeals is especially warranted when that court is proceeding to adjudication on the merits with due expedition.”). As far as I can tell, it would be unprecedented for us to second-guess the D. C. Circuit’s deci sion that a stay is not warranted, without the benefit of full briefing or a prior judi- cial decision.

On the merits, this is a difficult case involving a complex statutory and regu- latory regime. Although the parties’ abbreviated discussion of the issues at stake here makes it difficult for me to determine with any confidence which side is likely to ultimately prevail, it seems to me that at this stage the government has the bet- ter of the arguments. The Chief’s memo focuses on the applicants’ argument that the “best system of emission reduction” refers “solely [to] installation of control technologies (e.g., scrubbers).” 2/5 Memo, at 2. The ordinary meaning of “system” is in fact quite broad, appearing to encompass what EPA has done here. Of course, we would want to consider this term in the larger context of the Clean Air Act’s regula-

Continue Reading

Politics

BBQ lovers beware: Middle East conflict might disrupt your summer plans this year

Published

on

BBQ lovers beware: Middle East conflict might disrupt your summer plans this year

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Burger lovers take warning: neighborhood cookouts could be more expensive this summer, thanks to conflict in the Middle East.

Global tensions are pushing up energy prices, resulting in higher costs for beef and the propane used to fuel backyard grills — just in time for Americans getting ready for barbecue season.

“The impact of ongoing challenges in the Middle East on energy prices impacts nearly every facet of the U.S. economy and beef-cattle are not immune,” Glynn Tonsor, a professor of agricultural economics at Kansas State University, told Fox News Digital.

THE SINGLE CRUSHING PROBLEM AMERICAN CATTLE RANCHERS WISH TRUMP WOULD FIX INSTEAD

Advertisement

A decrease in ranching and rising propane and fuel prices are all contributing to an uptick in the cost of Americans’ backyard barbecue. (Jonne Roriz/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

Ranchers rely on energy at nearly every step of their process, from fueling tractors in the field to using trucks to transport cattle, and those higher costs are often passed on to consumers, Tonsor explained.

Those pressures are showing up at the pump. The national average for a gallon of gas now stands at approximately $4.09, up roughly 93 cents from just one month ago, according to AAA, with costs climbing across nearly every region.

Diesel, a key fuel for freight and shipping, has climbed to $5.61, up about $2.03 over the past year, making it more expensive to move cattle and beef across the country.

The ripple effects go far beyond beef.

Advertisement

Propane, the fuel powering many backyard grills, is also getting more expensive as global energy markets tighten, in part, because countries in the Middle East are such major suppliers to the world.

U.S. propane prices at the Mont Belvieu hub, the industry benchmark for this type of power, have surged nearly 19% since the conflict began in late February.

BEEF PRICES ARE CLOSE TO RECORD HIGHS — BUT AMERICANS AREN’T CUTTING BACK

But higher energy costs are only part of the story.

Cattle supply remains slow to respond. Unlike oil or metals, where supply can be increased relatively quickly, cattle production takes years to ramp up after a dip.

Advertisement

The U.S. cattle herd is now at its smallest size in 75 years, which is keeping the supply tight following years of drought, rising costs and an aging ranching workforce resulting in producers needing to cut back.

That tight supply is already pushing prices higher — and the Iran conflict is only proliferating the issue.

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, the average price of beef in grocery stores climbed from about $8.70 per pound in March 2025 to $10.08 a year later — an increase of roughly 16%.

Americans are likely to face higher prices for cookouts this summer amid the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which is creating shipping bottlenecks for fuel and propane.

Subsequently, even if energy prices ease, beef prices likely won’t be quick to follow.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

For shoppers, that means prices may remain high — or climb further — depending on whether consumers keep coughing-up cash for steak and burgers, or opt to switch to cheaper alternatives.

Much of that comes down to forces far beyond Americans’ backyard that continue to shape the cost of firing up the grill this summer.

Continue Reading

Politics

Judge blocks Nexstar-Tegna deal, throwing $6.2-billion merger into doubt

Published

on

Judge blocks Nexstar-Tegna deal, throwing .2-billion merger into doubt

A federal judge has blocked Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2-billion acquisition of its rival, upending the already consummated union of the nation’s two largest television station groups.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that forbids Nexstar, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles, and its takeover-target, Tegna Inc., from combining operations amid a legal dispute with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and seven other state attorneys general.

The order takes effect Tuesday.

“Nexstar must permit Tegna to continue operating as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote in his 52-page order. “And Nexstar must put measures in place to maintain Tegna as an ongoing, economically viable, and active competitor.”

Advertisement

The injunction is Nexstar’s latest setback in the controversial deal championed by President Trump.

Bonta and the others are opposed to the merger, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.

That duplication has raised concerns about staff consolidations and widespread newsroom layoffs.

“This is a critical win in our case,” Bonta said in a statement. “This merger is illegal, plain and simple. The federal government may have thrown in the towel, but we’ll keep fighting for consumers, for workers, for affordability and for our local news.”

Nexstar, in a statement, said that it will appeal the ruling, but that it has taken steps to comply with the court order.

Advertisement

“For nearly thirty years, Nexstar has provided free over-the-air access to all its broadcast stations — local news, weather, and community-focused programming alongside major network programming,” Nexstar said. “This procompetitive transaction will make local stations stronger and support continued investment in local journalism and fact-based news.”

Bonta and other state attorneys general sued to block the merger March 18. The state officials, all Democrats, alleged the union would create “a broadcast behemoth” with the “power to raise prices for television consumers” and diminish “local news and sports,” their lawsuit stated.

El Segundo-based DirecTV separately sued. It alleged the merger would dramatically tilt the pay-TV playing field, forcing DirecTV to pay dramatically higher fees for the rights to carry Nexstar-Tegna station programming, including local news and NFL football. Those costs, DirecTV said, would be passed along to its 10 million customers.

Trump had been agitating for the deal, writing in a February social media post: “GET THAT DEAL DONE!”

On March 19, the day after the lawsuits, the Trump administration approved the deal. The U.S. Justice Department terminated its antitrust review and the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau authorized the transfer of Tegna’s station licenses to Nexstar.

Advertisement

Within an hour, Nexstar announced that it had finalized the purchase of its McLean, Va.-based rival.

Tegna was dissolved and its stockholders were paid out — raising questions about the fate of Tegna’s stations.

“Nexstar must not influence the management of the held-separate TEGNA business unit,” Nunley wrote. “Tegna personnel must maintain control over Tegna’s decisionmaking, including … negotiations [with pay-TV partners], newsroom personnel, operations and programming, product and service offerings, product development, advertisement sales, and personnel.”

Nexstar has complained about the unusual nature of blocking a transaction after-the-fact. But the plaintiffs noted that Nexstar had been aware of the state attorneys general concerns since at least March 10 — more than a week before DirecTV and the state regulators sued.

Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia have joined California in the lawsuit.

Advertisement

The merger was not approved by the full FCC commission, prompting two U.S. senators — Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) — to question the FCC’s handling of the matter.

“This decision raises serious concerns about the Commission’s use of delegated authority in matters involving significant legal, policy, and economic consequences,” the two lawmakers wrote in a March 30 letter to the FCC. “The transaction is unprecedented in scale, resulting in the largest local broadcast television group in U.S. history.”

Nexstar has built itself into a colossus through a series of acquisitions, including its $6.2-billion takeover of Tribune Broadcasting, the longtime owner of KTLA, in 2019 — during the first Trump term.

Opponents have argued that Nexstar’s proposed purchase of Tegna gives Nexstar stations in 44 states covering 80% of the U.S. population — exceeding a 39% ownership cap set by Congress.

DirecTV has argued that the combination of the nation’s two largest television station groups could harm its pay-TV business by raising prices for consumers and potentially increasing programming blackouts.

Advertisement

The judge late last month combined the two lawsuits.

During a two-hour hearing earlier this month, Nexstar attorneys argued against the injunction, saying it had obtained the necessary federal approvals to take control of the Tegna stations.

“Setting aside the unusual FCC clearance process here, the Court does not find Defendants’ arguments persuasive,” Nunley wrote.

Nexstar contends the deal would strengthen TV station economics, allowing stations to bolster their news gathering and expand the number of newscasts. But DirecTV countered that in markets where Nexstar owns two stations, it relies on just one newsroom to program both channels.

“We commend the Court’s decision, which reinforces the coalition of states’ and our shared belief that unchecked station consolidation will force consumers to pay more for less by reducing the quality and variety of local news coverage,” DirecTV said in a statement.

Advertisement

Nexstar attorney Alexander Okuliar said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the merger posed an immediate threat to the public.

Nunley, who was appointed by former President Obama, wrote in his order that the plaintiffs demonstrated they had a path to prevail at a trial due to the merits of their arguments.

Nexstar had asked the judge to require the plaintiffs to post a $150-million bond to compensate it for damages it would suffer from any delays in closing the deal.

But the judge denied that request, writing that Nexstar did not offer a “financial analysis or documentary evidence to support a bond in this amount” or any evidence that it would incur financial losses should the injunction be overturned.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending