Justice Samuel Alito has come under fire for failing to recuse himself from Supreme Court cases related to the January 6 Capitol attack, despite growing concerns about his impartiality. The controversy escalated after it was revealed that flags linked to January 6 rioters were displayed outside his home, MSNBC reported.
Chief Justice John Roberts reassigned the majority opinion in Fischer v. United States from Alito to himself after reports of potential bias surrounding Alito surfaced in May.
Justice Alito’s involvement in cases related to the January 6 attack has drawn significant attention. Critics argue that his impartiality could be compromised due to the presence of symbols associated with the Capitol rioters at his home. These concerns were magnified as Alito was initially assigned to write the majority opinion for a crucial case connected to the January 6 defendants.
The case in question, Fischer v. United States, dealt with narrowing obstruction charges against those involved in the attack on the Capitol, a decision that could have significant implications for former President Donald Trump. Alito was set to author the ruling before the role was shifted to Chief Justice John Roberts.
This shift occurred shortly after a report by The New York Times highlighted the appearance of impropriety regarding Alito's potential bias in the case. The flag controversy brought about new scrutiny of the justice’s role in January 6-related cases.
Alito’s original assignment to write the majority opinion in Fischer v. United States was not publicly known until The New York Times’ report in May. According to the report, Chief Justice Roberts had designated Alito for the role, but the decision was reassessed after reports surfaced about the flags at his home.
Roberts has the power to assign majority opinions when he is in the majority, a role he exercises strategically. As concerns grew over Alito’s impartiality, Roberts ultimately took over authorship of the opinion in the case.
The 6-3 ruling was published on June 28, with Roberts penning the majority opinion and Alito joining the decision. However, the circumstances surrounding the reassignment of authorship have raised questions about the Court’s handling of potential conflicts of interest.
Alito’s involvement in the case, even after the authorship of the opinion was reassigned, has sparked debates about whether he should have recused himself entirely. Speculation has grown that if his association with pro-January 6 symbols was enough to strip him of writing the majority opinion, it should have also disqualified him from participating in the case.
The case involved critical legal questions about the extent to which obstruction charges could be used against individuals involved in the January 6 attack, a ruling that could influence ongoing legal proceedings related to the events of that day. With Alito still joining the opinion, some observers argue that the justice's continued involvement could have far-reaching implications.
The New York Times report, based on private memos, documents, and interviews with court insiders, detailed the internal deliberations leading up to the reassignment. However, it remains unclear who initiated the change in authorship or the exact reasons behind it.
Following the publication of the flag-related controversy, none of the nine Supreme Court justices responded to written inquiries from The New York Times seeking clarification about Alito's role in the case. This lack of response has fueled concerns about transparency within the Court.
In their report, The Times cited anonymous sources who provided insights into the Court's internal dynamics. These sources, representing both conservative and liberal perspectives, spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the secretive nature of Supreme Court deliberations.
Despite The Times’ efforts to shed light on the situation, NBC News and MSNBC have yet to independently confirm the findings of the report. This uncertainty leaves room for speculation about the true motivations behind the reassignment of the opinion.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that controversial language describing the Issue 1 redistricting amendment to the state's constitution may remain on the ballot with few changes, the Columbus Dispatch reported. The Republican-approved language said the amendment requires gerrymandering, while proponents believe it does the opposite.
The high court ruled 4-3 in favor of Republicans' characterization of the amendment as it will appear when Ohioans cast their votes on Nov. 5. The amendment would shift the task of drawing the maps away from state politicians to an appointed commission comprised of 15 citizens.
Citizens Not Politicians, which proposed the amendment, sued over the descriptive language for voters that they believe is the opposite of the measure's intention. The organization asserted that Republicans intentionally politicized the description.
However, prominent state Republicans, like Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, sided with the characterization based on its move away from the will of voters. The state's Supreme Court did as well, except for two sections that need fine-tuning by the Ohio Ballot Board.
Citizens Not Politicians has proposed a system in which a commission would be formed with five Democrats, five Republicans, and five independents. Issue 1 would move district mapping away from a voter-approved method to this new committee.
The chosen panelists would be responsible for drawing the congressional maps rather than elected officials as voters approved in 2015 and 2018. These panelists would be barred from serving as lobbyists, political consultants, elected officials, or any other political activity.
"Ohioans across the political spectrum − Republicans, Independents, Democrats − want to end gerrymandering. That’s why they’re voting yes on Issue 1: to reject the politicians’ lies, to get politicians and lobbyists out of the map-rigging business, and to end gerrymandering," Citizens Not Politicians claimed.
However, opponents believe that this new commission overrides what voters have already approved. They also believe that such a committee of unelected persons would open the door to exactly the practice the amendment is meant to stop.
Publicizing this fact on the ballot in the language describing the amendment is a win for the naysayers. "The ballot language is now clear: Issue 1 will force gerrymandering into the state constitution while destroying the anti-gerrymandering reforms Ohio voters approved by more than 70%," Ohio Auditor Keith Faber said of the measure.
This ballot measure could play an outsized role in national elections because Ohio is considered both a swing and bellwether state. As NPR pointed out, Republicans and Democrats court voters from the Buckeye State each cycle, and 2024 is no different.
Ohio has the longest-running legacy of picking the national winners, from 1964 with Lyndon Johnson through Donald Trump's 2016 victory. Moreover, since the Civil War, Ohio has chosen the winner 21 times and the loser only four times, including Trump's 2020 bid.
Vice President Kamala Harris will have to win over these voters who overwhelmingly chose Trump the last time he was on the national ballot. Moreover, she must convince them to choose her over their homegrown Sen. J.D. Vance, who appears on the GOP ticket as the former president's running mate.
If redistricting continues to favor Republicans through the conventional districting model, that could spell trouble for the Democratic Party, and they know it. If Harris wins the presidency, it will be that much harder for her and the Democratic Party to hold onto it next time around.
It's important that citizens know exactly what they are choosing when voting on these ballot initiatives. Any bill amendment that takes an issue away from elected officials, including Issue 1, should be met with skepticism.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams is facing increased scrutiny as his administration deals with federal criminal investigations targeting top officials, culminating in the resignation of his chief counsel, Lisa Zornberg, BBC reported.
Lisa Zornberg’s resignation is the latest in a series of departures from Adams’ administration as federal probes continue into multiple high-ranking officials.
Zornberg resigned late on a Saturday night, just two days after Police Commissioner Edward Caban stepped down following a federal raid on his home. The investigations have intensified in recent months, placing mounting pressure on Adams’ administration. In a brief statement, Zornberg explained that she could no longer effectively serve in her position.
The resignation of Zornberg came shortly after New York Police Commissioner Edward Caban’s sudden departure, which followed a raid by federal investigators. Caban’s phone was seized during the raid, heightening concerns about the extent of the ongoing investigation. In response to Zornberg’s exit, Adams thanked her for her service but did not provide a specific reason for her departure. The mayor indicated that a replacement would be named "in the coming days."
Federal probes have focused on several members of Adams' inner circle, including First Deputy Mayor Sheena Wright and Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Philip Banks III. Phones belonging to these officials were also reportedly seized, indicating a broadening investigation targeting multiple layers of leadership within the Adams administration.
The federal investigations have drawn attention to the administration since Adams was sworn in as mayor on January 1, 2022. In addition to the recent raids, previous inquiries focused on Brianna Suggs, Adams' chief fundraiser, who was implicated in a 2023 probe related to alleged illegal campaign contributions involving the Turkish government and other foreign entities. However, a source close to the recent investigations stated that these searches were unrelated to the Turkey case.
Zornberg, who had been a close legal and strategic advisor to Adams, regularly addressed media inquiries regarding the federal probes during weekly press conferences. Her sudden resignation raises questions about how the administration will navigate the growing number of investigations moving forward.
Following Zornberg's resignation, Mayor Adams emphasized that public service positions like Zornberg’s come with high expectations, and such roles can be taxing over time. "These are hard jobs, and we don't expect anyone to stay in them forever," Adams said in a statement, acknowledging the challenges of public office but stopping short of addressing the reasons for Zornberg’s departure in detail.
Zornberg expressed gratitude for her time in the administration, stating, "I am deeply grateful to Mayor Adams for giving me the opportunity to serve the city, and I strongly support the work he has done and continues to do for New Yorkers." She did not elaborate on the specific reasons behind her decision to leave but highlighted her appreciation for the mayor’s leadership.
As the federal probes continue, the pressure on Adams’ administration shows no sign of easing. Along with the investigations into campaign contributions, the recent actions taken against high-ranking officials suggest that the scope of federal scrutiny is widening. Adams has not publicly commented on whether he believes the investigations could lead to further resignations within his administration.
The resignation of Zornberg, following on the heels of Caban’s departure, adds another layer of complexity to the city’s political landscape. With several top officials under investigation and phones seized, it remains unclear how the administration will respond to the growing federal scrutiny.
The federal investigations, which initially focused on Adams' campaign finances, have now expanded to include multiple officials in key positions within the city government. Adams and his team have remained tight-lipped about the specifics of the investigations, leaving many questions unanswered as the federal probes continue.
As New York City’s mayor, Adams now faces the difficult task of steering the city through a period of uncertainty while maintaining public confidence in his administration. The lack of transparency surrounding the resignations and the ongoing investigations has raised concerns among city residents and political analysts.
The administration's legal strategy will likely shift in the coming days as Adams seeks to fill the vacancy left by Zornberg. The choice of her replacement could signal how the administration plans to approach the federal probes moving forward.
In a divided ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the Democratic Secretary of State's new restrictions on poll watchers.
The top court's Democratic majority sided with Jocelyn Benson, arguing she is acting within her authority as the chief election officer of the state to require poll watchers to communicate only with a designated "challenger liaison," among other changes.
“Under the Michigan Election Law, the secretary of state is the chief election officer of Michigan,” Justice Kyra Harris Bolden wrote. “The secretary has supervisory control over local election officials in the performance of their duties.”
The court also upheld rules requiring poll watchers to use a credential form provided by Benson.
The rules have been challenged by a group of plaintiffs including the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee, who said the rules violated Michigan election law.
Lower courts sided with the Republican plaintiffs, but in a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court largely upheld Benson's 2022 guidance for poll watchers.
The court dismissed as "moot" a challenge to Benson's ban on electronic devices inside absentee ballot centers because the Michigan legislature changed the law to allow limited use of electronic devices in those areas.
Benson said the court's ruling would help keep elections orderly and free of "interference."
“As our guidance has consistently made clear, challengers have a right to participate in the election process and they play an important role,” Benson wrote. “But election officials have a responsibility to maintain order in the polling place and ensure voters can cast a ballot without interference.”
In a dissenting opinion, Republican-appointed justice Brian K. Zahra said the court was greenlighting violations of election law that would damage trust in the process.
Zahra noted that the "challenger liaison" rule would leave many poll watchers at the mercy of an official from the opposing political party.
"The fact remains that in many instances, the manual will force challengers to communicate with a challenger liaison who will not be affiliated with the challenger’s political party or will be affiliated with an opposition political party."
The new rules allow a poll watcher to be expelled for not reporting to the designated "challenger liaison." Zahra balked at Benson's argument that she is not promulgating new administrative law, but merely "explanatory" guidance.
"The Secretary’s revisions to the manual are, in fact, 'rules' that must be followed—and followed without a trace of public discussion, accountability,
or transparency," Zahra wrote.
In 2020, Benson famously sent out mail-in ballot applications to all of the state's voters during the COVID pandemic. Benson's move was upheld by state courts.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A fight over a city's mistake when it installed a sewer line – on the wrong property – has gotten worse in Oklahoma, and city residents now are each being billed $10 a month so officials can continue their legal war.
The Institute for Justice reported a short time ago that it was helping Melisa Robinson go to court – AGAIN – to collect what the Oklahoma Supreme Court already has ruled a city owes her.
The problem is that an entity run by the city of Okay, its Public Works Authority, was ruled by the high court to owe Robinson $73,000 damages – now $200,000 including interest, for having its workers dig "a sewer line" on a small mobile home community owned by Robinson.
There was no permission, no authorization for that to have happened.
The city previously said its Public Works division is a trust, and while it may owe Robinson money, that division's assets all are owned by the city, and they deny any responsibility.
The newest development, according to the IJ, is that the city council voted to add a $10 surcharge, indefinitely, to all water customers.
It's not to pay the judgment, but to "pay its attorneys to continue fighting a lawsuit" from Robinson.
"The city did not let anyone from the public speak during the meeting about the surcharge. In 2022, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Okay Public Works Authority owed Melisa just compensation after it damaged and took her property when it replaced sewer lines without legal authorization. For years the city refused to pay, forcing Melisa to file another federal lawsuit with the Institute for Justice (IJ)," the legal team reported.
"It's beyond belief that Okay would rather raise a surcharge to pay their attorneys rather than pay me what the court already says they owe," Robinson said. "I don't think its right to charge the public to continue a fight they know is wrong to begin with. But if the city can do this to me, they can do it to anyone else."
The city claims the extra bills will cost residents about $30,000 a year.
"After years in court, Melisa Robinson was overjoyed when the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the city of Okay owed her family $73,000 for taking their property. Melisa's family are the long-time owners of a small mobile home community that was damaged in 2009 when Okay workers dug a sewer line on it without any legal authorization," IJ reported.
The lawyers explained, "The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says the government must pay for what it takes, and that means it must pay in cash—not hand over a worthless IOU."
"As long as the city refuses to pay Melisa the just compensation she's owed, it continues to violate the Fifth Amendment," said IJ Attorney Brian Morris. "And now, by trying to blame Melisa for the costs of litigation the city itself created, it's sending a clear message to the residents of Okay: If you try to stand up for your constitutional rights, we'll come after you in more ways than just one."
The Constitution doesn't allow governments to take private property without "just compensation."
"In Melisa's case, Okay began digging a brand-new sewer line on her property—without obtaining permission and without giving notice. (The Trust owned a sewer easement on the land next door. It didn't own anything on Melisa's land, but it dug anyway.) Making things worse, the work did not go well. There was extensive damage to the property and the sewage did not drain correctly from the homes. Melisa paid to fix the damage out of her own pocket—and then sued for compensation."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court has ruled that a $300,000 punishment for two school employees who complained about being ordered into "equity training" is unjustified.
"Americans should know that they have the freedom to file civil rights' litigation to vindicate their constitutional rights without fear of reprisal. No American should face crushing attorney's fees awards for merely attempting to hold government officials accountable. The risk of bearing those fees will discourage victims from seeking justice—justice they would not have had to seek had the government not violated their rights. The 8th Circuit's decision protects every American's right to pursue legal action to vindicate their fundamental freedoms."
That's a comment from Mathew Hoffman, of the ADF, which was among a long list of legal teams working to oppose the punishment imposed by a district court against two employees of the Springfield Public Schools in Missouri.
They had sued over being ordered into diversity and inclusion training they said violated their constitutional rights.
A lower court dismissed their case, and then demanded that they pay $300,000 in legal fees.
A decision from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, "The plaintiffs alleged during the training, the defendants compelled them to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district on the ground that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact and thus lacked standing to sue. The court also found that the lawsuit was frivolous and awarded attorney's fees to the school district. The plaintiffs appeal. Because we agree that the plaintiffs did not establish an injury in fact, we affirm the dismissal. We conclude, however, that the fee award was unwarranted and reverse that portion of the judgment."
The court ruling noted: "The school district provided in-person and virtual training. At the in-person training, school officials instructed the attendees on how to become 'Anti-Racist educators, leaders and staff members.' The district defined 'anti-racism' as 'the work of actively opposing racism by advocating for changes in political, economic, and social life.' The presenters cautioned that actions like practicing color-blindness and remaining silent about racism perpetuated white supremacy."
In fact, the indoctrination included statements including: "We want to stress that we are not calling you as an individual a white supremacist. That being said, certain actions or statements . . . can support that structural system of white supremacy."
The presenters also displayed an "Oppression Matrix" that categorized various social groups as a privileged, oppressed, or border group. For example, within the category of race, the matrix identified white people as a privileged social group, biracial people as a border group, and Asian, Latina/o, black, and native people as oppressed social groups. At the virtual training, the school district provided similar instruction," the ruling said.
When the fight over the legal fees arose, WND reported the chilling effect on speech was so significant that even the staunchly leftist American Civil Liberties Union joined a long list of conservatives in support of two teachers who challenged the "antiracism" indoctrination.
The concern was that the lower court judge's attack on the two teachers would send the chilling message not to challenge such ideologies ever.
The teachers are Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley. They challenged the indoctrination plan by the Springfield Public Schools.
The advocates argued, "Uncritically awarding government officials hundreds of thousands of dollars defeats the purpose of our fundamental civil rights statutes."
The district, in fact, ordered the teachers to "write down what they will do to adopt antiracism … akin to an ideological loyalty oath," court records show. The school had conceded it forced the teachers to attend the training, and then refused to give them credit unless they chose answers that violated their own beliefs.
For the second time this year, the judge in Donald Trump's Georgia criminal case is throwing away some of the charges.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dropped three of the charges in Fani Willis' sweeping "election interference" case, including two counts against Trump for forgery.
The judge ruled that Willis did not have the authority to charge Trump with filing false documents in federal court.
Eight of the original 13 counts against Trump remain.
"President Trump and his legal team in Georgia have prevailed once again," Trump's lead lawyer in the case, Steve Sadow, said.
Willis charged Trump and 18 other defendants, including his lawyers, in a sweeping conspiracy last summer to "overturn" the 2020 election in Georgia.
The case has been derailed by Willis' own incompetence and poor judgment.
In January, one of Trump's co-defendants alleged that Willis was profiting from an affair with a prosecutor she hired to work on the case, Nathan Wade.
Willis and Wade defended the affair at an explosive hearing in February, where they claimed the relationship did not constitute a conflict of interest.
McAfee declined to disqualify Willis in March as long as Wade left the case, which he promptly did. That same month, McAfee dropped six counts against Trump and his allies for a "fatal" lack of detail.
“They do not give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways," McAfee wrote at the time.
Beside her alleged conflict, Trump's lawyers have also challenged Willis over her racially inflammatory comments outside of court, which they say prejudiced potential jurors.
The case has been stalled indefinitely by Trump's appeal of McAfee's disqualification ruling.
An appeals court will hear arguments in December, ensuring the case won't be resolved until after the presidential election.
All of Trump's criminal cases are in limbo, in a major setback for Democrats who had once hoped to derail his presidential campaign with lawfare.
A federal case dealing with "election interference" has been bogged down in appeals, and a separate case over classified documents was thrown out by the judge.
Trump was convicted for "falsifying business records" in the spring, but the judge recently bumped the sentencing past the election.
Republicans are moving forward with contempt charges against Secretary of State Antony Blinken for ignoring a subpoena about the Afghanistan withdrawal.
This August marked three years since the botched and bloody evacuation, which led to the deaths of 13 American troops in a terror bombing and billions of dollars in equipment abandoned to the Taliban.
Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, set a September 19 date to mark up the contempt resolution, the Washington Examiner reported.
"This was a catastrophic failure of epic proportions,” McCaul told reporters on Monday. “This is a disgrace. I will hold him in contempt if that’s what it takes to bring him before the American people.”
The White House dismissed McCaul's contempt threat as partisan bluster, noting Blinken has testified to Congress numerous times.
“The Secretary has testified before the Congress on Afghanistan more than 14 times — more than any other Cabinet-level official,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said, the Washington Examiner reported. “It is disappointing that instead of continuing to engage with the Department in good faith, the Committee instead has issued yet another unnecessary subpoena.”
McCaul released a lengthy report this week blaming the Biden-Harris administration for the chaotic evacuation, which has continued to haunt the White House ahead of the fall elections.
Democrats have pointed the finger at President Trump, who negotiated a deal with the Taliban to end the war in Afghanistan. McCaul's report says the Taliban had violated the terms of the Doha Agreement, but the Biden administration pushed ahead regardless with a dangerous and ill-conceived evacuation that prioritized "optics" over safety.
The report echoes criticism from top generals like Mark Milley and Kenneth McKenzie, who blame the State Department for failing to order a timely evacuation.
McCaul, a foreign policy hawk, said the withdrawal has damaged America's global security interests.
"We cannot see now into Afghanistan except through over the horizon, which doesn't work. We can't see Russia, China and Iran, either, because of this tragic failure of foreign policy," he told reporters.
The Biden administration has stood by its decision to withdraw, saying it was time to end America's longest war.
The Justice Department, which is currently run by Democratic partisan Merrick Garland, would need to act on any contempt charges approved by the House.
The DOJ earlier this year declined to prosecute Garland after Republicans voted to hold him in contempt for refusing to provide an audio recording of Joe Biden.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal appeals court has released an opinion that gives free-speech advocates across America a major victory, according to a report from constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley.
He's testified before Congress on fine points of the Constitution, and even has represented members in court. His expertise on the topic is well recognized.
His description of the ruling against the University of Louisville being a "major victory for free speech" came following a decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Allan Josephson, who "was subject to adverse actions after he publicly expressed skepticism over some treatments for youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria."
The ruling, Turley pointed out, "deals with qualified immunity and reaffirms liability for denial of free speech protections."
The opinion essentially found that the school was not allowed to claim immunity for having denied Josephson free speech protections.
"Josephson was a professor of psychiatry at the medical school and had success at the school after serving as the Division Chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Louisville for nearly 15 years. He has 35 years of experience in the field," the report said.
His "good standing," however, suddenly vanished when he expressed his opinion on transgenderism that "children are not mature enough to make such major, permanent decisions and that 80-95 percent of children claiming gender dysphoria eventually accept their biological sex over time without such treatment," the report said.
Those are commonly accepted facts supported by studies and surveys.
But the school decided not to renew his contract because his beliefs differed from the politically correct line of thought.
And officials claimed qualified immunity when they were sued.
"The university was seeking protection that would have insulated anti-free speech practices from liability, a dangerous prospect that could have dramatically accelerated the growing intolerance on campuses. The University of Louisville was arguing that they could punish faculty for public statements without fear of liability as state officers," the report said.
The appeals court ruling went another direction.
"Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for two main reasons. First, they argue it was not clearly established that each defendant's conduct, in isolation, was an adverse action sufficient to show retaliation against a professor because of his protected speech. Second, they argue it was not clearly established that the First Amendment protected statements like those Josephson made in October 2017."
The ruling continued, "Resolving Defendants' first argument is not complicated. Defendants argue that Josephson's rights were not clearly established because no court had specifically addressed whether isolated actions against a professor because of his speech were adverse actions. In other words, Defendants believe they can act as they choose until there is a case on all fours. We disagree. As we have explained, 'we do not require an earlier decision that is 'directly on point."
"During the relevant period, it was beyond debate that 'the First Amendment bar[red] retaliation for protected speech.'"
And the ruling said the school's second claim wasn't any better.
"That is because the protected nature of Josephson's speech was also clearly established. 'To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent.' … The principle 'must be settled law,'" the opinion said.
"It is, and has been, clearly established that public employees have a right to speak 'on a matter of public concern regarding issues outside of one's day-to-day job responsibilities, absent a showing that Pickering balancing favors the government's particular interest in promoting efficiency or public safety,'" the ruling said.
Turley said the decision is particularly important because he thinks "public universities will be key to any effort to restore free speech values to higher education."
The decision returns the fight to the lower court.
The New York Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump must remain under a gag order until Judge Juan Merchan sees fit to remove it, preventing Trump from speaking about some aspects of his felony conviction for falsifying business records even though there's an election in less than 60 days.
Trump was successful in delaying the sentencing on his 34 felony counts until after the election, but doing so may have prolonged the gag order he is currently under even as he looks to run a vigorous campaign in the runup to Election Day.
He was hoping the court would give him relief, but it did not.
“No substantial constitutional question is directly involved,” the court ruled.
Really? What about free and fair elections? How are elections supposed to be fair if one side is allowed to say whatever they want and the other side isn't?
But no, the big bad Orange Man is too dangerous and must be silenced, this thoroughly partisan court has ruled.
Whatever happens, Democrats feel they must prevent the "Threat to Democracy" (Trump) from getting back in office, even if they have to cheat and lie to do it.
Trump is not allowed to say anything about prosecutors in the case or their families because a tiny number of his supporters are insane and made death threats against them (or Democrats did so that Trump supporters would look bad).
Juan Merchan and DA Alvin Bragg are still fair game.
It seems reasonable, but constraining a major party candidate so close to an election could have very serious impacts on said election--and Democrats like those on the New York Supreme Court seem to be banking on that very eventuality.
The entire case was designed to bring Trump down, and when that didn't work, the gag order was the next step.
Maybe the U.S. Supreme Court can right this egregious wrong before the impact can be felt.
With early voting starting any day, though, it seems more and more unlikely.
Democrats managed to deny Trump a second term in 2020 by using media bias and censorship to his advantage. Will they do any less in 2024?