Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: This surprise argument could derail Trump's effort to delay the Jan. 6 trial

Published

on

Opinion: This surprise argument could derail Trump's effort to delay the Jan. 6 trial

As all eyes watched every word filed by Donald Trump and federal prosecutors ahead of next week’s crucial arguments on immunity, a third party slipped in the side door with a brief that may dramatically foil the former president’s efforts to leverage the issue for maximum delay.

The watchdog organization American Oversight, which is not a party to the case, successfully petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to accept its friend-of-the-court brief on the ground that it provides a “unique perspective.”

Indeed it does. The brief makes the apparently compelling argument that the court shouldn’t be hearing this appeal at all because it lacks jurisdiction — that is, the power to consider it in the first place. If the court agrees, it would mean dismissing the appeal and returning the case to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, abruptly aborting Trump’s best opportunity to delay the federal Jan. 6 trial.

Trump’s argument is that he is entitled to avoid trial because the Constitution prohibits indicting him for conduct he undertook as president, at least if it was within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties. Most observers, including me, think Trump will lose the claim on the merits, but it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will have to make that pivotal determination. The question is when — before trial, putting the case on ice, or afterward.

Chutkan has decided that she can’t go forward with the trial until that’s settled, reasoning that immunity is a right not to go to trial in the first place. That suggests that even if Trump is bound to lose his claim, he will be able to string out the process for at least a couple of months, bumping back the start of probably the most important of the four criminal trials he faces. Originally scheduled for March, the trial is thereby being delayed deeper into Trump’s campaign to return to the White House.

Advertisement

Enter the American Oversight brief, written by lawyers with the Washington-based firm Arnold & Porter. The brief relies on a unanimous 1989 Supreme Court opinion, Midland Asphalt Corp. vs. United States, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The defendant in the criminal case, Midland Asphalt, had moved unsuccessfully for a dismissal of the charges based on the prosecution’s alleged violation of grand jury rules.

The Supreme Court held that neither it nor the circuit court had the power to hear the case on “interlocutory appeal,” or before trial. As with the vast majority of issues that may arise at trial, the court ruled, this one could be considered only after a conviction.

The court emphasized that in criminal cases, the compelling interest in prompt trials demands that courts apply the interlocutory appeal doctrine “with utmost strictness.” Federal courts have jurisdiction over such appeals, the justices found, only if they are brought under a constitutional or statutory provision that expressly gives the defendant a right not to go to trial.

Since the Midland Asphalt opinion, the court has identified only three categories of motions that may be considered before trial in criminal cases: motions to reduce bail and those concerning the double jeopardy clause in the Constitution’s 5th Amendment, and the speech or debate clause, which protects legislators from being “questioned” — that is, tried — at all.

Trump’s immunity argument therefore doesn’t seem to fit within Midland Asphalt’s exceptions. It doesn’t rest on any explicit constitutional guarantee. And the D.C. Circuit Court previously held that a right based on constitutional principles such as the separation of powers doesn’t cut it.

Advertisement

The Justice Department and Trump had been assuming the D.C. Circuit Court has jurisdiction based on Nixon vs. Fitzgerald, which established broad but not endless immunity from lawsuits over a president’s conduct while in office. But that civil case was not subject to the “utmost strictness” standard the Supreme Court has applied to criminal trials. It also predated the Midland Asphalt opinion, which the Justice Department somewhat bafflingly failed to mention.

There may be a reason the Midland Asphalt doctrine doesn’t apply here, but I can’t think of one.

Jurisdiction is an issue that courts take extremely seriously, and I think the D.C. Circuit Court should and probably will consider the argument that it lacks jurisdiction very carefully. It’s already ordered the parties to address American Oversight’s position at oral argument Tuesday, when it’s likely to be a subject of intense questioning.

If the argument succeeds, it will be an appellate version of the sort of Perry Mason moment that rarely happens in a real courtroom. With a wave of a jurisdictional wand, Trump would be back in the district court preparing for an only slightly delayed trial.

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast. @harrylitman

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending