Closing summary
The supreme court upheld a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing firearms, in a decision cheered by Joe Biden, and supported by all justices on the conservative-dominated court, with the exception of Clarence Thomas. Kamala Harris, however, warned that the law was exactly the type of thing Donald Trump would go after, if elected president. Meanwhile, all signs point to a blockbuster week for the court beginning Wednesday. The justices will release more decisions that day, perhaps including cases on Trump’s immunity petition, whether cities can stop people from sleeping outside, and whether the Biden administration can require states to perform emergency abortions.
Here’s what else happened today:
Steve Bannon, the influential Trump ally, has asked the supreme court to delay the start of his jail sentence after being convicted of contempt of Congress.
Anti-Trump group the Defend Democracy Project said the supreme court has “very likely guaranteed” that his trial on federal election subversion charges is not resolved before the November election.
New York prosecutors are asking judge Juan Merchan to preserve parts of the gag order imposed on Trump in his business fraud case.
Trump’s lawyers are planning a legal offensive against part of his indictment over allegedly possessing and hiding classified documents, the Guardian can reveal.
A Nevada judge dismissed charges brought against six Republicans for allegedly plotting to submit fake certificates saying Trump won the state’s electoral votes in 2020.
Nevada judge strikes potentially fatal blow to case against state's fake electors
A judge in Nevada has ordered charges dismissed against six Republicans indicted last year for allegedly plotting to submit fake certificates certifying that Donald Trump won the state’s electoral votes in 2020, the Associated Press reports.
The state’s attorney general Aaron Ford vowed to appeal the ruling by judge Mary Kay Holthus, who said the charges were filed in the wrong venue. Here’s more, from the AP:
A Nevada state court judge dismissed a criminal indictment Friday against six Republicans accused of submitting certificates to Congress falsely declaring Donald Trump the winner of the state’s 2020 presidential election, potentially killing the case with a ruling that state prosecutors chose the wrong venue to file the case.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford stood in a Las Vegas courtroom a moment after Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus delivered her ruling, declaring that he would take the case directly to the state Supreme Court.
“The judge got it wrong and we’ll be appealing immediately,” Ford told reporters afterward. He declined any additional comment.
Defense attorneys bluntly declared the case dead, saying that to bring the case now to another grand jury in another venue such as Nevada’s capital city of Carson City would violate a three-year statute of limitations on filing charges that expired in December.
“They’re done,” said Margaret McLetchie, attorney for Clark County Republican party chairman Jesse Law, one of the defendants in the case.
The judge called off trial, which had been scheduled for next January, for defendants that included state GOP chairman Michael McDonald; national party committee member Jim DeGraffenreid; national and Douglas County committee member Shawn Meehan; and Eileen Rice, a party member from the Lake Tahoe area. Each was charged with offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged instrument, felonies that carry penalties of up to four or five years in prison.
Supreme court rulings can have long and impactful ripple effects. This week, for instance, Louisiana’s Republican governor signed legislation to require the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms, which the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington reports was a consequence of decisions the court handed down two years ago:
Louisiana’s decision to force public schools to display the Ten Commandments is the latest fallout from a spate of controversial rulings from the rightwing supermajority of the US supreme court which has opened up a Pandora’s box that is fueling efforts to turn America into a theocratic state.
The new law, signed on Wednesday by the hard-right governor, Jeff Landry, puts Louisiana in the vanguard of a decades-long movement to obliterate the foundational US separation of church and state. It puts wind in the sails of those who want the US to be reinvented as an overtly Christian nation, and comes in the wake of two highly contentious opinions from the highest court.
Both rulings, delivered within six days of each other in 2022, were backed by the six ultra-conservative justices who now have a stranglehold on the country’s most powerful court. The supermajority is one of the main legacies of Donald Trump, who placed three of the justices on the bench.
The Second Amendment Foundation, a group supporting gun rights, gave a mixed review to the supreme court’s ruling today upholding a federal law that bars domestic abusers from keeping firearms.
In a statement, the group said that though the justices did not narrow their 2022 Bruen ruling, which expanded the ability to carry a firearm in public, as much as gun control advocates hoped, they took issue with the reasoning behind their ruling today in United States v Rahimi:
Rahimi posed a difficult issue for the Court to resolve. And while the Court may have arrived at a conclusion that society believes to be best, it did so in a manner that poses some inconsistencies with what Bruen demands. To be clear, domestic violence is abhorrent and those who commit such acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – for which a conviction would result in their disarmament through imprisonment.
As Justice Thomas wrote “the question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order – even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.” Stripping an individual of their Second Amendment rights, when they have not been accused or convicted of a crime, is not consistent with what the Constitution protects.
The Court’s justification in upholding the law by cobbling together bits and pieces of historical laws to find a “historical analogue” may allow future courts to uphold various infringements on the Second Amendment by the same sort of manufacture.
Donald Trump has been criminally indicted four times, with one of his cases leading to a felony conviction on business fraud charges in New York City.
The other three cases are stalled, for various reasons. Our case tracker tells you why:
Anti-Trump group says supreme court has 'very likely guaranteed' Trump January 6 trial delayed until after election
While the supreme court issued five decisions today, including one in a closely watched case dealing with gun restrictions, it has yet to rule on Donald Trump’s petition for immunity from the federal charges brought against him for trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump’s trial on those charges cannot proceed until the court issues its ruling – which the Defend Democracy Project says is the point. In a statement, the anti-Trump group’s chair Mike Podhorzer and Norman Eisen, a legal analyst who assisted Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, accused the court’s conservative justices of “an act of election interference” by delaying their decision for so long that it is unlikely the case will go to trial prior to the November 5 election:
Week after week, we all have waited for a ruling on Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim. It’s time to acknowledge that the delay is the ruling. Regardless of the substance of the decision on presidential immunity, the delays engineered by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the three judges Trump named to the Court have very likely guaranteed that he will avoid a jury verdict for his criminal conspiracy to overturn the last election before the American people vote in the next one. Those justices have ensured an irreconcilable showdown in the fall between the ordinary operations of the criminal justice system, which would require Trump’s speedy pre-trial and trial proceedings, and the ordinary functioning of the presidential election system, in which both nominees are free to campaign.
No matter what the Supreme Court concludes, the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have already achieved their goal. The MAGA wing of the court has shielded Trump from facing a jury of his peers for so long that it has become an act of election interference. It’s been over six months since the court was first petitioned on December 11 to address Trump’s ludicrous version of presidential immunity that embraces the right to assassinate his political rivals. These delays blow past the markers for prior cases of comparable importance. They are a lifeline for Trump to escape the final judgment of a jury before the next election, and a reminder that the American people lack the impartial judiciary we all deserve.
Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, said he is “relieved” that the supreme court upheld the ban on domestic abusers possessing guns, writing on X that there was “absolutely no sane legal argument” for striking down the ban.
Blumenthal added that Friday’s ruling was the court’s attempt “to try to clean up its own mess” after the “legal catastrophe” of the landmark ruling of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, in which the six conservative justices allowed handguns to be carried in public in most instances. Blumenthal added:
While I welcome today’s correct decision, I remain fearful about the fate of future gun violence prevention laws in the hands of this ideologically inconsistent & extreme Court.
As I said at the outset of this case, there was absolutely no sane legal argument for striking down this law, & I’m relieved that most of the Supreme Court agreed. Domestic violence restraining orders which prohibit gun possession save lives. 1/ https://t.co/NAkosXbk6l
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) June 21, 2024
Updated
While sifting through his work emails one February afternoon, Clyde Estes saw a message that dismayed him.
“I started reading it and was just shocked,” recalled Estes, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. “It’s something you don’t expect to see.”
It relayed what Kristi Noem said at the state legislature just a few days prior. In her address at the state capitol, the second-term South Dakota governor blasted US immigration policy, saying that “invasion is coming over the southern border”.
Noem alleged that tribal leaders in South Dakota were profiting off drug cartel activity. These remarks, and her controversial comments about Native children, have been met with staunch condemnation from Indigenous leaders, and have dredged up a bitter history between the tribes and the state.
As a result, all nine of South Dakota’s federally recognized tribes, which cover more than 12% of the state, have now banned Noem from their reservations.
If the governor attempts to enter the reservation, Estes said that tribal law enforcement would notify county sheriffs and ask her to voluntarily leave the reservation.
“She would be charged with trespassing,” said Estes, calling the situation “very, very unfortunate”.
We’re going to stand up to defend our people.
Read the full story here: Native tribes on banning Kristi Noem from reservations: ‘She’d be charged with trespassing’
Kamala Harris has released her own statement responding to the supreme court’s ruling upholding a federal ban preventing anyone placed under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.
Harris’ statement echoes the one earlier distributed by the Biden campaign, where she says while she and Joe Biden “stand up to the gun lobby, Donald Trump bows down.”
She notes that the Biden administration have passed “the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years” and have “stopped nearly 30,000 firearms sales to convicted domestic abusers”, adding:
If Donald Trump returns to power, all that progress would be at risk.
The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves important domestic violence protections in place, but the fight to protect commonsense gun safety measures is not over.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 21, 2024
President @JoeBiden and I have passed the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years, and our administration…
Updated
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has doubled down on his accusations that the US is holding back weapons and ammunition from Israel in its war in Gaza.
The Israeli leader caused a furious reaction in Washington this week after he posted a video on social media saying that it was “inconceivable” that the Biden administration had held up weapons shipments to Israel, and implied that Israel’s ability to prevail in the nine-month war with Hamas was being hampered as a result.
The White House responded by cancelling a high-level meeting with Israeli officials on Iran.
John Kirby, the White House’s national security adviser, strongly denied the claims and called Netanyahu’s comments “vexing”, “disappointing” and “incorrect”.
Netanyahu, in an interview with Punchbowl News published this morning, said he had aired his criticisms because he “felt that airing it was absolutely necessary after months of quiet conversations that did not solve the problem.” He said:
I raised this issue with Secretary Blinken. And I said that we are being told by our Defense Department officials that barely a trickle is coming in. He said, ‘Well, everything is in process. We’re doing everything to untangle it and to clear up the bottlenecks.’ And I said, ‘Well, that’s what I expect to happen. Let’s make sure that it does happen.’ It must happen.
Updated
The day so far
The supreme court has upheld a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing firearms, in a decision cheered by Joe Biden, and supported by all justices on the conservative-dominated court, with the exception of Clarence Thomas. Kamala Harris, however, warned that the law was exactly the type of thing Donald Trump would go after, if elected president. Meanwhile, all signs point to a blockbuster week for the court beginning Wednesday. The justices will release more decisions that day, perhaps including cases on Trump’s immunity petition, whether cities can stop people from sleeping outside, and whether the Biden administration can require states to perform emergency abortions.
Here’s what else has happened today so far:
Steve Bannon, the influential Trump ally, has asked the supreme court to delay the start of his jail sentence after being convicted of contempt of Congress.
New York prosecutors are asking judge Juan Merchan to preserve parts of the gag order imposed on Trump in his business fraud trial.
Trump’s lawyers are planning a legal offensive against part of his indictment over allegedly possessing and hiding classified documents, the Guardian can reveal.
Supreme court set to release more opinions next Wednesday
The supreme court is scheduled to release more opinions on Wednesday of next week, and chances are good that the justices will by then decide at least one of the cases concerning major constitutional questions that are pending before them.
University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck has a rundown of the court’s unfinished business:
#SCOTUS isn't set to hand down decisions again until next Wednesday.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 21, 2024
Depending upon consolidated opinions re: Chevron and NetChoice, there are 12–14 left, all but *one* of which are major cases (in yellow).
And the ozone pollution emergency applications are also still pending. pic.twitter.com/rmiNAOfopE
Prominent on that list is Trump v United States, which is the former president’s request for immunity from the federal election meddling charges against him.
Also outstanding is Idaho v United States, which concerns whether the Biden administration can require the state’s federally funded hospitals to carry out emergency abortions, despite the state’s strict ban on the procedure. There’s also City of Grant’s Pass v Johnson, which deals with whether municipalities can pass laws against people sleeping outside.
Following supreme court decision, Harris says Trump 'bows down' to gun lobby
In a statement distributed by Joe Biden’s re-election campaign, Kamala Harris warned that Donald Trump would present a threat to gun laws such as the one the supreme court upheld today, which bans domestic abusers from possessing firearms.
Harris’ statement was markedly more political than the president’s, who instead focused on the importance of protecting domestic abuse victims. Here’s what she had to say:
While President Biden and I stand up to the gun lobby, Donald Trump bows down. Trump has made clear he believes Americans should ‘get over’ gun violence, and we cannot allow him to roll back commonsense protections or appoint the next generation of Supreme Court justices. I have worked my entire career to protect women and children from domestic violence—from prosecuting abusers to supporting survivors. President Biden and I will never stop fighting for the rights of every American, including every survivor of domestic violence, to live free from the horror of gun violence. To continue that work, we must defeat Donald Trump in November.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s presumptive opponent in the November presidential election, Donald Trump, remains under a gag order imposed by the judge in his business fraud case that prevents him from attacking witnesses, jurors and other players.
The Associated Press reports that prosecutors have asked Juan Merchan, the judge who presided over the case, to maintain parts of the order ahead of Trump’s debate face-off with Biden scheduled for next Thursday.
Here’s more:
Prosecutors on Friday urged the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal hush money case to uphold provisions of a gag order that bar him from criticizing jurors and court staff, while agreeing to lift a restriction on his public statements about trial witnesses.
In court papers filed Friday, prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office argued that portions of the gag order remained necessary given the Republican former president’s “singular history of inflammatory and threatening public statements,” as well as efforts by his supporters to “identify jurors and threaten violence against him.”
“Since the verdict in this case, defendant has not exempted the jurors from his alarming rhetoric that he would have ‘every right’ to seek retribution as president against the participants in this trial as a consequence of his conviction because ’sometimes revenge can be justified,” the filing states.
The gag order, issued in March, prohibited Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses, jurors and others connected to the case. It does not restrict comments about the judge, Juan M. Merchan, or Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office prosecuted the case.
Attorneys for Trump have called on the judge to lift the order following the culmination of his trial last month, which ended in his conviction on 34 felony counts for falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal. Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, is set to be sentenced on July 11.
Biden says supreme court preserved 'critical protections' for domestic violence survivors
Joe Biden said the supreme court’s ruling today upholding a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing guns preserves “critical protections” for victims of abuse.
“No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun. As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades,” the president said.
“Vice President Harris and I remain firmly committed to ending violence against women and keeping Americans safe from gun violence. We will continue to call on Congress to further strengthen support and protections for survivors and to take action to stop the epidemic of gun violence tearing our communities apart.”
Influential Trump ally Steve Bannon asks supreme court to delay prison sentence
Steve Bannon, a prominent ally to Donald Trump, has appealed to the supreme court to delay the beginning on his four month-prison sentence for contempt of Congress, the Associated Press reports.
Bannon was ordered to report to prison by 1 July after being convicted nearly two years ago of charges related to defying a subpoena from the January 6 committee. He is now asking for the intervention of the nation’s highest court, which turned down a similar request from Peter Navarro, another former Trump White House adviser who was convicted of similar charges.
Here’s more, from the AP:
The request came after a federal appeals court panel rejected Bannon’s bid to avoid reporting to prison by July 1 to serve his four-month sentence. It was addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in Washington, D.C.
The high court swiftly denied a similar request from another Trump aide in March. Bannon’s request comes a week before the court is set to begin its summer recess.
Bannon was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the Jan. 6 House Committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
Bannon has cast the case as politically motivated, and his attorney David Schoen has said the case raises “serious constitutional issues” that need to be examined by the Supreme Court.
If Bannon goes to prison next month, he will likely have to serve his full sentence before the high court has the chance to review those questions, since the court is due to take its summer recess at the end of June, attorney Trent McCotter wrote in his emergency application.
Attorney general Garland vows to 'continue to enforce this important statute' after supreme court decision in guns
Attorney general Merrick Garland said the justice department will continue enforcing the federal law that bars domestic abusers from possessing guns, after the supreme court’s ruling today in United States v Rahimi.
“The Justice Department will continue to enforce this important statute, which for nearly 30 years has helped to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence from their abusers. And we will continue to deploy all available resources to support law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and victim advocates to address the pervasive problem of domestic violence,” Garland said in a statement.
Here’s more:
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision in United States v. Rahimi
— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) June 21, 2024
🔗: https://t.co/PHQaHqodnW pic.twitter.com/mIavEjH3C0
From the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington, here’s more on the significance of the supreme court’s ruling today in United States v Rahimi, in which the justices upheld a law banning domestic abusers from carrying guns, while weighing in on a major 2022 decision that expanded the ability to carry weapons in public nationwide:
The US supreme court has upheld a federal ban preventing anyone placed under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.
The ruling in US v Rahimi, supported by eight justices to one, with Clarence Thomas dissenting, will leave in place legal protections against a major source of gun violence in America. Writing the opinion, the chief justice, John Roberts, said that individuals can be temporarily disarmed if they pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” without violating the second amendment to the constitution that allows the right to bear arms.
“Since the founding, the nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” he wrote.
The judgment will come as a relief to gun control advocates who had feared that the ability to disarm dangerous people might fall prey to the radical interpretation of the second amendment advanced by the court’s conservative supermajority. In the 2022 ruling New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, the six conservative justices allowed handguns to be carried in public in most instances.
They said that any restrictions on ownership had to conform to the “history and tradition” of firearms regulations stretching back to the 18th century. Gun control groups feared that the ruling might be used to unravel America’s already lax regulations, with potentially disastrous consequences.
The ruling in United States v Rahimi comes two years after the supreme court’s Bruen decision, in which the court’s conservative supermajority dramatically expanded the ability to carry weapons in public.
But many of those same justices today found in Rahimi that the government could also take weapons away from domestic abusers. That opinion was supported by five of six conservatives, all of whom supported the ruling in Bruen. The court’s three liberals also signed on to Rahimi, with conservative justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter:
The supreme court’s chief justice John Roberts wrote the opinion in United States v Rahimi, which upheld a law that bans domestic abusers from carrying guns.
“An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,” Roberts wrote.
Supreme court upholds ban on domestic abusers possessing guns
In its final decision of today, the supreme court has upheld provisions of a 1994 law that bans people under domestic violence restraining orders from carrying guns.
The decision was backed by the court’s three liberal justices, and five of six conservatives, with only Clarence Thomas dissenting.
The day’s fourth opinion in Smith v Arizona, which deals with whether prosecutors in criminal trials can use substitute expert testimony in certain circumstances.
You can read the opinion here.
There are no dissents to the opinion authored by liberal Elana Kagan.
The court signals that there are still more opinions to come.
The court’s third ruling of the day is Erlinger v United States, which deals with the due process surrounding a law called the Armed Career Criminal Act.
The opinion can be read here.
This one is also a six-three decision, but with a mixed lineup of conservatives and liberals. The opinion was written by conservative Neil Gorsuch, who was joined by fellow Republican appointees Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, along with liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Conservatives Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented, as did liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson.
We expect more opinions to be released.
The second ruling of the day is in Department of State v Muñoz, which concerns whether a US citizen’s rights were violated when their non-citizen spouse was refused a visa to the country, and whether the denial was properly explained.
The court held that their rights were not violated, in a decision supported by the six conservative justices, and opposed by the three liberals.
The court has again signaled that more decisions are coming.
The first case to be decided is Texas v New Mexico and Colorado, a dispute over water rights.
You can read the opinion here.
The court has signaled it will release more opinions.
Supreme court to begin releasing opinions
It is nearly 10am ET here in Washington DC, which means the supreme court will soon start releasing its latest decisions.
The rules are the same as always: we do not know in advance how many cases the justices have decided, or which ones they are. We will find out as they come out, and keep you updated as it happens.
Government regulations are not a particularly sexy subject, yet they are pivotal in determining how Washington handles everything from the climate crisis to food safety. Among the cases that the supreme court could rule on today is one that could upend such regulations, and open the floodgates for a wave of litigation, the Guardian’s Gabrielle Canon reports:
The US supreme court is poised to decide the fate of a decades-old legal framework that has helped determine how the federal government regulates everything from pollution to financial markets.
With cases on abortion, homelessness and Donald Trump grabbing the spotlight, the so-called Chevron deference doctrine has flown somewhat under the radar. But it could be among the court’s most influential decisions this year, upending the way Congress legislates, how bureaucrats carry out presidential directives and how courts rule when conflicts arise over the regulatory process.
Named for a landmark 1984 case, the doctrine gives federal agencies the authority to interpret laws when they are unclear. Defenders argue that it places important and complicated decisions in the hands of qualified agency experts, instead of potentially politicized regional courts and judges.
But in recent years, the framework has become the focus of ire on the political right, who see it as evidence of federal government overreach. The conservative-dominated court seems poised to strike down or limit the once-championed convention, with Justice Neil Gorsuch – joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as outspoken detractors – writing in a 2022 dissent that “the whole project deserves a tombstone no one can miss”.
Now, the court has a chance to give it one. Here’s what you need to know:
Trump plans legal offensive against classified documents case
One of the most hotly anticipated cases that the supreme court could rule on today is Donald Trump’s challenge to the federal charges against him for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. His lawyers say that Trump is immune from prosecution because he carried out the alleged acts as president, and, during oral arguments in April, some of the justices on the conservative-dominated court seemed to agree, at least in part.
The federal election interference case is one of two brought against Trump by special prosecutor Jack Smith. The other concerns the former president’s possession of classified documents and conspiring to keep them from investigators.
That case is moving slowly through pre-trial motions, and the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell has uncovered new details of the Trump’s legal strategy. Here’s what he found:
Donald Trump is expected next week to ask the federal judge presiding in the criminal case over his retention of classified documents to revoke prosecutors’ access to memos made by his ex-lawyer that became key evidence of his efforts to obstruct the investigation, according to sources familiar with the plans.
The request will be made before US district judge Aileen Cannon at a sealed hearing Tuesday. The former president last month challenged prosecutors’ access to transcripts of voice memos made by ex-lawyer Evan Corcoran, but what Trump will seek behind closed doors has not been reported.
Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that none of the memos should have been given to prosecutors on the crime-fraud exception, which allows prosecutors to see privileged communications between a defendant and a lawyer, if their legal advice was used in furtherance of a crime.
The sweeping request could have far-reaching consequences since the memos – with, for example, Trump asking whether they could ignore the subpoena, or a later suggestion to “pluck” out some classified documents instead of returning them to the FBI – are the strongest evidence of Trump’s obstructive intent.
Even if the judge excludes only some of the passages, it could dramatically undercut the strength of the obstruction case.
Updated
Supreme court set for morning opinion release as Trump and abortion cases linger
Good morning, US politics blog readers. The supreme court will once again be releasing opinions this morning, potentially on several high-profile cases that the justices still have not yet decided. In particular, the conservative-dominated court may weigh in on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for attempting to overturn the 2020 election, if the Biden administration can require federally funded hospitals to carry out emergency abortions, as well as a challenge to a doctrine that underpins many federal regulations. There are also several other cases they could issue decisions on, and, as always, we will only learn of their rulings when they come out.
The court published four decisions yesterday, which covered less well-known criminal justice matters, and a tax dispute that some feared could be used to head off the possibility of creating a wealth tax (the justices did not rule in that direction). One thing is for sure: all of the outstanding cases from the court’s most recent term will not be decided today. The supreme court has scheduled Wednesday of next week to release more opinions.
Here’s what else we are watching today:
Joe Biden is at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland, with nothing public on his schedule. That probably means he is preparing for next Thursday’s debate with Trump.
Trump has seen a surge in fundraising since his May criminal conviction, the New York Times reports, bringing his financial power close to that of the Biden campaign.
An appeals court has refused top Trump ally Steve Bannon’s attempt to delay the start date of his prison sentence for contempt of Congress, meaning he must be behind bars by 1 July.
