Supreme Court’s Ruling in Trump Case Causes Uproar in Congress on Immunity

WASHINGTON -- Political repercussions that continue this week from Donald Trump’s win of partial immunity from prosecution include threats in Congress against the Supreme Court and a new burden on a Washington, D.C., federal judge to recast the criminal case against him.

The Supreme Court ruled last week that Trump is immune from prosecution for his official acts as president but not for his unofficial actions.

Trump faces criminal charges in New York, Georgia, Florida and Washington, D.C. The Washington charges of obstruction of an official proceeding are based on allegations he incited the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying the presidential win for Joe Biden.

Democrats in Congress are saying the ruling shows the need for aggressive oversight of the Supreme Court.

This week, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez filed articles of impeachment against Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Both of them are conservatives who supported the partial immunity for Trump.

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a social media post on X after the court’s decision. "Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."

New York Democratic Rep. Joe Morelle said he would propose a constitutional amendment to overturn the court’s ruling and to prevent what he described as similar abuses by the justices.

“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do – prioritize our democracy,” Morelle posted on X.

By sending the case back to lower courts to decide which of Trump’s actions are official or unofficial, the Supreme Court is leaving U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to decide how the ruling might alter the former president’s prosecution in Washington.

Most likely is that Chutkan would convene a proceeding later this summer to weigh evidence of official and unofficial acts.

The court could decide that when he told his supporters on Jan. 6 to march to the Capitol he still was speaking in his official capacity as president, thereby granting him immunity.

Even if Chutkan’s decision goes against Trump, he still could appeal, meaning any final judgment is likely to be delayed beyond next November’s presidential election.

Trump leads in most polls. If he wins, he could use his authority as president to grant himself immunity from all prosecutions.

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe warned about the precedent of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“If any U.S. president offers to pardon whoever will murder a political enemy, the immunity ruling in Trump v. United States makes both that president and the pardoned murderer permanently immune from prosecution,” Tribe posted on X. “No wonder Trump praised the opinion as a work of genius.”

However, Trump administration attorney general William Barr said any concerns were exaggerated about presidents abusing authority under the guise of official acts.

“The president has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflict and so forth,” Barr said in a Fox News interview. “He has the authority to direct the justice system against criminals at home. He doesn’t have authority to go and assassinate people.”

Barr added, “So, all these horror stories really are false.”

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Supreme Court Blocks State Laws Restricting Social Media Censorship

The Supreme Court last week at least temporarily voided state laws restricting the discretion of social media companies over their content moderation policies.

The ruling was praised by the Washington, D.C.-based Computer & Communications Industry Association as a victory for free speech but criticized by two state attorneys general.

The social media companies are trying to respond to pressure from Congress by removing false or inflammatory content posted by users that could harm other persons.

In previous years, it has included the kind of provocative statements that fueled extremists, such as the ones who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Conservative lawmakers in Texas and Florida were bothered by parts of the content removal that touched on political viewpoints. They enacted laws prohibiting social media companies from removing content that expresses a specific viewpoint, regardless of whether they believe it is unpopular.

The Supreme Court said the content social media companies allow or remove is a matter of their choice protected by the First Amendment.

"To the extent that social media platforms create expressive products, they receive the First Amendment's protection," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s decision.

As a result, the state laws are unenforceable unless Texas and Florida can prove they do not violate the Constitution.

The laws were directed primarily at Facebook, YouTube, X (formerly known as Twitter), Google and Instagram.

Previous federal court rulings have held that the First Amendment protects all published or spoken speech except for obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, real threats of violence and fighting words.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to lower courts to determine which parts of social media content moderation goes beyond their First Amendment discretion in a way that could be enforced under the state laws.

The Supreme Court ruling provides breathing room for social media companies as they are torn between threats from Congress to avoid harmful posts and conservative states that do not want censorship of fellow conservatives who are sometimes labeled radicals.

In one example of the dilemma, the Senate Judiciary Committee called on the chief executive officers of social media companies to explain at a hearing in January what they are doing to avoid harming children and other vulnerable persons with exploitative content on their sites.

In response to a demand from a senator, Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Meta, apologized to parents at the Senate hearing who said posts on his Facebook subsidiary contributed to their children's suicides or exploitation.

"I’m sorry for everything you’ve all gone through," Zuckerberg said as he turned to the audience. "It’s terrible. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered."

However, he and other social media executives explained to the Senate panel that they were trying to promote their platforms as a business enterprise, not to exploit anyone.

Their intensifying efforts to block exploitative content contributed to the Texas and Florida laws that try to limit removal of viewpoint posts.

Social media companies were represented in their lawsuit by the trade groups NetChoice LLC and the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

They won only partial success before the Supreme Court in their effort to have the state laws thrown out completely. The Court said the state laws could apply to some social media services but not others.

“The laws appear to apply beyond Facebook’s News Feed and its ilk. But it’s not clear to what extent, if at all, they affect social-media giants’ other services, like direct messaging, or what they have to say about other platforms and functions,” Kagan wrote.

The justices expressed concern that companies with only limited social media content, such as ride-sharing service Uber and retailer Etsy, could be affected by the state law restrictions.

The uncertainties were a factor in sending the case back to lower courts for additional proceedings and fact-finding.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association was pleased with the ruling, saying in a statement, “We are encouraged that a majority of the Court has made clear that the government cannot tilt public debate in its favored direction.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton disagreed in a post on X, saying, “No American should be silenced by Big Tech oligarchs.”

The cases are Moody et al. v. NetChoice LLC et al., and NetChoice LLC et al. v. Paxton, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

College Basketball Players Sue NCAA for Use of “Name, Image or Likeness”

A group of 16 former college basketball players sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association last week to recover some of the billions of dollars they say the organization earned on television rights and publicity from their games.

The defendants include the college athletic conferences that represent Georgetown University, the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech University.

The players are invoking a recent federal court settlement to claim the NCAA misappropriated their names, images or likenesses to make money without compensating them.

The lawsuit filed in New York is a further move toward removing the ill-defined lines between professional and college sports.

It uses former Kansas Jayhawks standouts Mario Chalmers and Sherron Collins as examples of athletes who say they were exploited, such as through television replays of the March Madness basketball tournament where they won the 2008 national championship.

"The same is true for thousands of former NCAA athletes across all sports whose names, images, and likenesses are continuing to be displayed for commercial purposes by the NCAA, its member conferences, and its partners such as [media partner Turner Sports Interactive]," the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court says.

The lawsuit accuses the NCAA of violating the federal Sherman Antitrust Act through restraints on trade.

"The NCAA has for decades leveraged its monopoly power to exploit student-athletes from the moment they enter college until long after they end their collegiate careers," the lawsuit says. "The NCAA has conspired with conferences, colleges, licensing companies, and apparel companies to fix the price of student-athlete labor near zero and make student-athletes unwitting and uncompensated lifetime pitchmen for the NCAA."

The lawsuit uses legal language similar to the class action that led the NCAA and the nation's five biggest college sports conferences to agree in May to pay a nearly $2.8 billion settlement to student athletes who alleged antitrust violations.

They won an agreement from the NCAA to lift its ban on athletes being paid for corporate and other endorsements.

The landmark settlement in House v. NCAA opened the door for revenue-sharing that would direct millions of dollars in media rights to athletes as soon as next year.

It also renewed debates in Congress and among colleges about the risks athletes would be forced to overlook their quality of their education to fulfill their endorsement contract obligations.

Until this year, the only compensation college athletes were authorized by the NCAA to receive was their scholarships, many of which required maintaining good grades.

The NCAA has not yet commented on the lawsuit.

In other lawsuits, the NCAA has argued that student athletes willingly yielded their publicity rights as a condition of eligibility to play college sports.

The NCAA also has said college sports are public events that give it a First Amendment right to film them and to replay the video.

The case is Chalmers et al. v. NCAA et al. filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Fined $4.4 Million for Failure to Properly Handle Food Assistance

The federal government is fining the District of Columbia $4.4 million for repeated errors in its administration of food assistance benefits to the city’s poorest residents.

The Agriculture Department’s notice of the fine for errors in processing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is only the latest criticism of the District of Columbia’s handling of high-demand public benefits.

The Agriculture Department said the city underpaid or overpaid for 20 percent of SNAP beneficiaries. The federal government assesses fines when the error rate exceeds 6 percent.

It was the second year in a row the District was fined.

“SNAP is a critical lifeline for millions of low-income Americans, providing essential nutrition assistance to help families put food on the table,” said the Agriculture Department’s notice to Laura Zeilinger, director of D.C.’s Department of Human Services. “The District of Columbia’s proper administration of SNAP is essential to ensuring the Program operates efficiently, effectively, and with integrity.”

The D.C. Council held a hearing last week to figure out the source of the error rate.

Public benefits are processed through the D.C. Access System, which manages SNAP benefits along with Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program and Medicaid enrollees. The city has spent about $600 million on the highly computerized system.

Zeilinger said the Department of Human Services is overburdened with claims. Staff members often must work overtime and weekends to catch up on the paperwork, she said.

Claims for benefits increased 40 percent during the pandemic. About 140,000 local families rely on SNAP benefits.

The Department of Human Services offered a corrective action plan in November but federal officials say it is taking too long to implement.

City Council members, such as Christina Henderson (I-At Large) and Robert C. White Jr. (D-At Large) were annoyed during the city council meeting. They said the Department of Human Services’ internal problems were making low-income residents even more desperate.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Vote Fails in Congress to Hold Attorney General in Contempt

Congress declined Thursday to hold U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for refusing to turn over audiotapes of a special counsel’s interview with President Joe Biden over his handling of classified documents.

The Republican resolution proposed in the U.S. House Wednesday would have fined Garland $10,000 per day until he turned over the tapes.

Biden was interviewed last year by special counsel Robert Hur on whether the president violated federal law by taking classified documents that he stored in the garage of his Delaware home after he served as vice president.

Garland turned over a redacted transcript of the interview to Congress on March 12 but said the audiotapes were part of an investigative file that was exempted from public disclosure.

In addition, the White House invoked the executive privilege of the presidency to prevent public release.

Some Republicans said they needed the audiotapes to document what they believe is Biden’s age-related cognitive decline.

This week, more Democrats are joining calls for Biden to withdraw from the presidential reelection race after his disastrous presidential debate last month.

The latest was Thursday, when Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., posted on X, saying, “President Biden has served his country well, but for the sake of our democracy, he must pass the torch to a new candidate for the 2024 election.”

More than a dozen Democrats in Congress have said publicly they want Biden replaced. An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll published this week shows 67 percent of voters also say he should step aside.

The vote Thursday for “inherent contempt” of Congress by Garland failed by a 204-to-210 margin.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., who submitted the resolution for a vote, said she would refile it. She said some Republicans who would have voted for it were away taking care of other duties Thursday.

"Attorney General Merrick Garland will pay and be held accountable for trying to undermine our institutions,” Luna posted on X. “No one is above the law.”

Luna toned down the resolution before the vote to a call for a $10,000-a-day fine against Garland. The original version had an additional provision that would have had him arrested and put on trial in Congress.

Before the failed contempt vote, a Justice Department spokesperson said, "This is unconstitutional. We are confident our arguments would prevail in court."

Hur, who was appointed as special counsel by Garland, reported in February that his investigation showed no criminal charges against the president were warranted. The report said the "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

The part of the report that attracted the most attention in Congress said that "Biden would likely present himself to a jury ... as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

House Republicans voted June 12 to hold Garland in contempt of Congress over his refusal to give them the audiotapes.

The general contempt citation carried no additional penalties. Inherent contempt is different because of the fines and trial that could result from it.

The Justice Department has refused to prosecute Garland. It said prosecuting attorneys general could interfere with their future willingness to perform their duties.

A separate Republican effort to obtain the audiotapes continues in federal court. On July 1, the House Judiciary Committee sued the Department of Justice for a court order.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.