Connect with us

The Dictatorship

SCOTUS majority declines to give ‘barest form of mercy’ as National Guard ruling awaits

Published

on

SCOTUS majority declines to give ‘barest form of mercy’ as National Guard ruling awaits

Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. The Supreme Court didn’t hold hearings this week — the justices will be back on the bench next month for arguments on tariffs and other issues. But the justices still made news, sometimes without trying to, such as when James Comey cited GOP appointees’ writings in a motion to dismiss his indictment. The big question as we head into the weekend is whether the court will approve the Trump administration’s bid to deploy the National Guard in Chicago.

The justices could rule at any time on the shadow docketin one of the most consequential cases so far in President Donald Trump’s second term. The administration argues that the president has unreviewable discretion to deploy troops, while lawyers for Illinois and Chicago want the justices to “protect the basic structure of American federalism from unprecedented intrusion.” How the court handles Chicago has nationwide implications as litigation unfolds over deployments in Oregon and California. For the latest in the National Guard litigation, visit MSNBC.com and the Deadline: Legal Blogand download the MSNBC app.

On the shadow docket this week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued her latest pointed dissent against the Republican-appointed majority’s refusal to address constitutional problems in capital punishment. Joined by fellow Democratic appointees Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor blasted the majority for refusing to extend the “barest form of mercy” to an Alabama inmate who wanted to be executed by firing squad instead of a suffocating nitrogen gas execution. “The Constitution would grant him that grace. My colleagues do not,” she wrote of the justices who offered no explanation for their refusal to step in.

Meanwhile, Republican appointees made cameos in the Comey litigation, specifically in his challenge to Trump-installed lawyer Lindsey Halligan’s appointment to lead the U.S. attorney’s office that charged him in Virginia. In addition to citing Justice Clarence Thomas’ prior opinions — including in the Trump immunity case, in which he questioned special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment — the former FBI director pointed to a legal memo Justice Samuel Alito authored when he was a DOJ lawyer in 1986. According to Alito’s logic in that memo, Halligan’s purported installation by the administration was illegal. The Trump DOJ’s response to Comey’s motion is due ahead of a hearing on the subject set for Nov. 13.

Thomas also featured in a challenge to same-sex marriage, with Kim Davis citing the justice several times in a brief urging the justices to take up her appeal. The former Kentucky county clerk who famously declined to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in 2015 wants the high court to reverse its decision in Obergefell v. Hodgesthe landmark ruling that recognized same-sex marriage rights. The justices are unlikely to do so, but we won’t know for sure until after they consider Davis’ petition at their private conference on Nov. 7.

On a topic the court is interested in, the justices added another gun case to the docket for this term, in a dispute that will test the justices’ approach to the Second Amendment. The issue in this latest appeal is the validity of a federal law that bans gun possession for people who are addicted to or illegally use controlled substances. The Trump administration wants the court to uphold the law in the case of Ali Danial Hemani, whom the government called a habitual marijuana user.

And, by the way, if you were planning on visiting the Supreme Court, it’s closed to the public “until further notice” because of the government shutdown.

Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them through this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter.

Jordan Rubin

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

The Dictatorship

No plan B: Trump is flailing to find an off-ramp for the Iran war

Published

on

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 24 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Donald Trump’s war on Iran is in its fourth week. Gas prices are up $1 a gallon in much of the country. Stocks continue to fall on fears of global supply shortages.

The death toll is growing. Thirteen American service members have lost their livesand more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed, along with upward of 1,000 people in Lebanonmore than 150 in the surrounding Gulf states and 17 Israelis. That’s not accounting for the millions who are displaced and the thousands who have been injured, including hundreds of U.S. troops.

But according to the president who launched the war, it’s all over.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win.

“We’ve won this. This war has been won,” he told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office. “The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.”

However, during those same remarks, Trump was all over the place — talking about an epic victory, ongoing peace negotiations and personal gifts.

It was all completely counter to his posture over the weekend, when he threatened to “obliterate” Iranian civilian power plants — essentially teasing a war crime — if Iran did not stop blocking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuzsomething Iran was not doing before Trump attacked them.

But now, he has supposedly pressed pause on that bombing plan for five days because, he said, the negotiations are going well.

When he first announced that in a social media post Monday, it sent oil prices down 10% and boosted stocks.

However, those markets reversed themselves Tuesday after the Iranians said they have not engaged in any serious high-level negotiations with the Americans, and they claimed Trump was making things up to help oil prices. The Israelis said the same thing. (That’s not to say you should take Iran’s word for it, or Israel’s, but you shouldn’t take the White House’s word, either.)

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win. He had no plan B, and now he is flailing to find some kind of fallback position.

On Monday, sources from the administration told Politico that they have their eyes on a future U.S.-backed leader of Iran: Mohammad ⁠Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.

“He’s a hot option,” one unnamed U.S. source — who seems to really wants a deal — told Blue Light News. “He’s one of the highest. … But we got to test them, and we can’t rush into it.”

But on Tuesday, that “hot option” trolled Trump for what he called a “jawboning campaign” to stabilize oil prices. In a social media postGhalibaf wrote: “[L]et’s see if they can turn that into ‘actual fuel’ at the pump — or maybe even print gas molecules!”

Call it the fog of Trumpian war: a million contradictory messages flying around, constantly wildly pinging bits of news that don’t make sense together.

Right now, we have reports that Trump’s negotiators, including his envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance, are traveling to Pakistan for informal talks with an Iranian official.

At the same time, unnamed U.S. officials have told The New York Times that the Saudi crown prince is pushing Trump to continue the war until Iran’s government collapses — something the Saudis publicly deny.

In fact, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Saudi officials are holding talks in Riyadh with their Arab counterparts to find a diplomatic off-ramp from the war.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. officials said the Pentagon was poised to deploy 3,000 troops of the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. That is in addition to two Marine expeditionary units on their way to the region and the 50,000 U.S. troops already stationed there.

Also on Tuesday, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq are claiming that U.S. strikes there killed 30 of their members.

But, according to Trump, the peace talks are going great, right?

All eyes everywhere have been on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran responded to the U.S. attack by striking oil tankers and shutting down 20% of the world’s supply of oil and liquefied natural gas. It is now essentially running a toll operation in the strait.

Some countries, such as China, Japan and India, are negotiating deals with Iran to get its oil out. Which is to say, Iran is shipping more oil and making more money than it was under the U.S. sanctions in place before Trump attacked it.

It’s clear the president sees what’s happening, so now he is trying to share control of the strait with Iran. Trump told reporters the strait would be “jointly controlled” by “maybe” him and “the next ayatollah.”

The administration really thought this was going to be another Venezuela. They told themselves that, and they were egged on to believe it by the staunchest advocates of the war, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Lindsey GrahamR-S.C.

But in Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact, even if militarily degraded, and they now have explicit control of the Strait of Hormuz — a huge pressure point.

It really looks like the U.S. is backed into a corner: It can sue for peace because of the oil tanker situation, but they do not have much leverage, or it can escalate the war. That may be why we’re seeing all these contradictory developments.

In Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact.

Trump issued an ultimatum he had to walk back from because he said there were deep peace negotiations, which then later proved to be completely fabricated.

Now, more U.S. troops are set to be deployed for a possible ground invasion in the Middle East, despite reports that the U.S. has supposedly sent a 15-point plan to Iran through Pakistan to end the war.

It almost looks as if Trump is trying to wave the peace card to keep a lid on oil futures and financial marketsjust long enough to have ground troops in position — and just in time for the markets to close for the weekend on Friday, when Trump’s “pause” on bombing Iranian power plants is set to end.

That could be the plan Trump now settles on, weeks into a deadly war where there was obviously, very clearly, no real plan at all.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Chris Hayes hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday through Friday on MS NOW. He is the editor-at-large at The Nation. A former fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Hayes was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is “The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource” (Penguin Press).

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

Published

on

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

A California state jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark social media case on Wednesday, awarding $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who brought the case and putting the Instagram maker’s liability at 70% and the Google company’s at 30%.

The jurors later decided to award a total of $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000. The verdict was reached on the jury’s ninth day of deliberation.

A 2023 complaint accused social media companies of fueling an unprecedented mental health crisis for American children through “addictive and dangerous” products. Plaintiffs accused the companies of deliberately tweaking their products to exploit kids’ undeveloped brains to “create compulsive use of their apps.”

The civil case was brought by several plaintiffs against several companies, but this state court trial, which featured testimonyfrom Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, involved a plaintiff described by her initials as “K.G.M.” in court papers against Instagram and YouTube.

In the 2023 complaint, K.G.M. said she was a 17-year-old in California who started using social media at a much younger age, though her mother told her not to and used third-party software to try to prevent the daughter’s social media use. The complaint alleged that the corporate defendants designed their products in ways that let kids evade parental controls and that the companies knew, or should’ve known, that K.G.M. was a minor.

The plaintiff alleged that Instagram’s and other companies’ addictive designs led her to develop “a compulsion to engage with those products nonstop” and to see “harmful and depressive content, urging K.G.M. to commit acts of self-harm, as well as harmful social comparison and body image.”

She alleged that she suffered bullying, depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia through Instagram and that Meta did nothing in response to a report about it. “Meta allowed the predatory user to continue harming minor Plaintiff K.G.M., including through the use of explicit images of a minor child,” the complaint said, adding that the company’s “defective reporting mechanisms and/or deliberate failure to act caused emotional and mental health harms to K.G.M. in addition to and separate from any third-party conduct.”

The companies, which have denied wrongdoingsaid Wednesday that they plan to appeal.

Jillian Frankel contributed from Los Angeles.

Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

Published

on

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released hours of deposition footage from its interviews with two former close associates of Jeffrey Epsteinattorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., a member of the committee, joined “The Weeknight” to discuss the interviews and the efforts to hold any accomplices of the late sex offender accountable.

“What is remarkable is that even in death, his closest associates and co-conspirators are still covering for him,” Stansbury said.

During their depositions, both Indyke and Kahn insisted they had no knowledge of Epstein’s illegal behavior. The New Mexico Democrat cast doubt on those claims, taking particular issue with Indyke’s testimony, during which she said it was possible that Epstein’s former attorney may have “perjured himself.”

“He claimed that he had no knowledge of all of these nefarious activities, and yet he literally has spent decades of his life at the center of this controversy,” she said. “I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.”

Stansbury told MS NOW she believed it was important for the public to understand that both Indyke and Kahn “stand to make tens of millions of dollars off of their execution” of Epstein’s will. She added that “the way the will is structured, there is a survivor fund, and at the end of that, they get to basically keep whatever is left over.”

“We don’t know what was written into whatever contracts, but it’s clear that they have a financial interest,” she said.

Stansbury said the pair’s depositions should be part of a greater effort from lawmakers and law enforcement across the country to pursue accountability for Epstein’s victims, even after his death. She highlighted how her home state, New Mexico, was doing just that.

“That is why we are going to continue to seek justice in this case, and it’s why in New Mexico, not only did we pass a truth commission, but one of the updates that we want to tell people about is that we plan to pursue convictions against individuals who were implicated in these crimes who were not prosecuted by the federal government,” she said. “We want to turn these Epstein files into Epstein trials — and that’s exactly what we plan to do.”

You can watch Stansbury’s full interview in the clip at the top of the page.

Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending