Tag: Trump Supreme Court

We Now Know What the FBI Did With the 4,500 Kavanaugh Tips It Collected in 2018

Slate Logo

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has spent nearly three years attempting to understand the nature of the FBI’s “supplemental investigation” of claims that emerged against Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings in the summer of 2018. The senator’s attempts to get answers from either the Trump White House or the FBI were largely unsuccessful while Trump was still in office. But Whitehouse kept trying—almost as soon as Merrick Garland was sworn in as attorney general, Whitehouse asked him to help facilitate “proper oversight” by the Senate into questions about how serious the FBI supplemental investigation really was.

Whitehouse asked Garland to explain why there was no mechanism for witnesses to report their accounts to the FBI, and why, after the FBI decided to create a “tip line,” nobody was ever told how the tips were evaluated. In his March letter to Garland, Whitehouse described that tip line as “more like a garbage chute, with everything that came down the chute consigned without review to the figurative dumpster.” Whitehouse asked Garland to explain “how, why, and at whose behest” the FBI conducted a “fake” investigation that violated standard procedures. Whitehouse also asked Garland to probe into the tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt that mysteriously vanished from Kavanaugh’s life in 2016.

And it seems he has finally gotten at least some answers. On Wednesday morning, Whitehouse’s office released a June 30 letter from FBI Assistant Director Jill C. Tyson. The letter is a response to an even older request sent by Whitehouse (and Sen. Chris Coons) asking similar questions about the supplemental background investigation—this one, sent to the FBI in August 2019. Among other revelations, Tyson’s letter indicates that the FBI’s supplemental investigation happened at the direction of the White House, that the most “relevant” of the 4,500 tips the agency received were referred back to White House lawyers in the Trump administration, and that in the days of the follow-up investigation, 10 people were interviewed (it doesn’t say this, but other reporting has confirmed that neither Christine Blasey Ford nor Kavanaugh were among these 10 people). The letter clarifies that this was a supplemental background check, not a criminal investigation because that is what was sought by the White House counsel’s office. Continue reading.

‘They’re playing the long game’: Legal experts warn post-Trump Supreme Court ‘laying foundations’ for right-wing turn

Raw Story Logo

The U.S. Supreme Court that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell rigged in their favor did not veer quite as far to the right in this past term as some feared, but legal experts cautioned that they’re “laying foundations” for a more conservative future.

The twice-impeached one-term president managed to ram through a third justice weeks before losing the Nov. 3 election, but analysts were somewhat surprised by the number of unanimous rulings and the decisions on the Affordable Care Act and a few other cases, reported The Guardian.

“I think we at the ACLU can to some degree breathe a sigh of relief,” said David Cole, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s nowhere near as bad as people thought.” Continue reading.

Supreme Court decision amps up voting rights battle in Congress

The Hill logo

A controversial 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court on Thursday upholding Republican-backed voting restrictions in Arizona has upped the ante for this year’s voting rights debate in Congress.

It also means that calls to reform the Senate’s rules will only continue to grow, despite recent declarations from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) that they will not support eliminating or curtailing the filibuster.

Democratic strategists warn the high court’s decision in Brnovich v. DNC, which liberals believe has seriously undermined Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, opens the door for Republican-controlled state legislatures to get more aggressive in passing restrictions that they believe will have a disproportionate impact on minority voter turnout. Continue reading.

Supreme Court strikes down disclosure rules for political donors

Axios Logo

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to hand over a list of their biggest donors.

Why it matters: Some campaign-finance advocates have feared the court will begin chipping away at disclosure rules more broadly, making it harder and harder to figure out who’s funding major political causes.

The big picture: In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said California had subjected donors to the threat of public harassment and intimidation, undermining their First Amendment right to free association. Continue reading.

Supreme Court upholds GOP voting restrictions in Arizona

Axios Logo

The Supreme Court today upheld a pair of voting restrictions in Arizona, likely paving the way for new limitations across the country.

Why it matters: It’s the court’s biggest voting rights decision in several years. Conservatives’ victory in the 6-3 ruling, authored by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, is a sign of what’s to come. 

Details: The case concerned two voting restrictions in Arizona. The state invalidates ballots that are cast in the wrong precinct, and it also bans the practice known as “ballot harvesting,” in which third parties collect and return other people’s ballots.

Supreme Court reshapes Congress’ power to allow lawsuits

Roll Call Logo

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas writes that the court ‘has relieved the legislature of its power to create and define rights’

A Supreme Court decision Friday about a class-action lawsuit against credit reporting agency TransUnion limits Congress’s power to determine who can file a federal lawsuit — by shifting more of that decision to the judicial branch.

The case centers on the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, which created a way for consumers to file a lawsuit to recover damages for certain violations of law, in part to protect consumer privacy. The majority ruled, in a sharply divided 5-4 opinion, that some of the plaintiffs did not have the right to file the lawsuit.

In doing so, the majority delves into separation-of-powers issues between the three branches of government. And the court concludes that Congress can give people the right to file a lawsuit over violations of law, but ultimately the federal courts have the power to say whether those people can file those lawsuits. Continue reading.

Whitehouse and Kennedy request Supreme Court travel records

Roll Call Logo

Request is part of a deeper review of senior government officials’ disclosures

Two key senators want travel records of Supreme Court justices as part of a broader congressional look at financial disclosure standards for the receipt of gifts, travel and other financial gains by senior government officials.

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedyasked the Justice Department and the U.S. Marshals Service last week for information and documents about the last 10 years of trips for members of the high court.

The Supreme Court Police handles protection for the justices in the Washington metropolitan area. But the justices can request security from the Marshals Service, which is part of the Justice Department, for other domestic travel. Continue reading.

Supreme Court Rules Against Immigrants Seeking Green Cards

New York Times logo

The justices said immigrants with “temporary protected status” who entered the country without authorization may not apply for lawful permanent residency.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that immigrants allowed to stay in the United States temporarily for humanitarian reasons may not apply for green cards if they had entered the country unlawfully.

The case, Sanchez v. Mayorkas, No. 20-315, could affect tens of thousands of immigrants. It was brought by Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, natives of El Salvador who entered the United States unlawfully in the late 1990s.

In 2001, after earthquakes devastated El Salvador, the United States made that country’s nationals eligible for the “temporary protected status” program. The program shields immigrants from parts of the world undergoing armed conflicts and natural disasters from deportation and allows them to work in the United States. Continue reading.

Democrats: Roe v. Wade blow would fuel expanding Supreme Court

The Hill logo

Democratic senators say if the Supreme Court strikes a blow against Roe v. Wade by upholding a Mississippi abortion law, it will fuel an effort to add justices to the court or otherwise reform it.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week agreed to hear the Mississippi case, which could dramatically narrow abortion rights by allowing states to make it illegal to get an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

“It will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme Court if this activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Continue reading.

Supreme Court takes case that could diminish Roe v. Wade

The Hill logo

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a dispute over a Mississippi law that bans virtually all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, potentially setting the 6-3 conservative majority court on a collision course with the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.

The move was announced in an unsigned order, with the justices indicating the dispute would be limited to the major issue of the constitutionality of pre-viability restrictions on elective abortions. 

The case was brought on appeal by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R) after a federal appeals court sided with challengers to the state’s restriction.  Continue reading.