The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has handed down a major ruling in Worth v. Jacobson in favor of the Second Amendment. The opinion by Judge Duane Benton upholds a lower court in striking down a Minnesota law limiting gun permits for persons 21 years old. It is a question that could find its way to the Supreme Court once splits among the circuits develop. Continue reading “Worth Reading: The Eighth Circuit Finds Bar on 18-20 Year Olds Violates the Second Amendment”
Category: Supreme Court
Below is my Hill column on President Joe Biden shifting his position on the Supreme Court and agreeing to “limits” on the Supreme Court. This ran before President Biden finally consented to withdraw from the race. It makes this last ditch effort even more tragic for his legacy. He resisted these calls for 50 years, including roughly four years of his presidency. He only succumbed in the final six months as he struggled to save his candidacy. It did not work, but his pledge will outlast his presidency.
As I mentioned in the column, the ploy might not work and Biden might not make it past the convention. The pledge, however, will remain and now Biden is committed to the ill-conceived legislation. After what I called “succession by defenestration” in yesterday’s column, Vice President Kamala Harris will likely want to show continuity in fulfilling this pledge. Indeed, judging from her past statements, she may double down on pushing for new limits. The irony is that his offer did not close the deal with the party for Biden, but he will now likely seek to fulfill the deal in limiting the Court.
Here is the earlier column (without changes due to the announcement): Continue reading “Supreme Folly: The Tragic and Ironic Legacy of President Biden on Court “Limits””
Below is my column in The Hill on the over-wrought reaction to the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States. Commentators seemed to compete for the most alarmist accounts from court-sanctioned death squads to political assassinations to the death of democracy. From the coverage of the immunity decision, one would think that the Madisonian Democracy was being replaced by a John Wick Republic. The academic and media accounts have little basis in the actual opinion. Despite the prediction of Rachel Maddow that this was a “Death Squad Ruling,” the only thing that seemed to die was objective reporting and commentary in the wake of the decision.
Here is the column: Continue reading ““A Death Squad Ruling”: The Press and Pundits Make Wild Claims in the Wake of the Court’s Immunity Decision”
One of the least discussed aspects of the interview with President Joe Biden last night was his declaration that two of the nine justices are not long for the Court. The question is which two are facing retirement or the reaper. Continue reading “The Grim Reaper: Biden Declares Two Justices Will Be Gone in Four Years”
Below is my column in the New York Post on the Supreme Court’s historic presidential immunity decision. I am not someone who has favored expansive presidential powers. As a Madisonian scholar, I favor Congress in most disputes with presidents. Yet, the reaction to the Court’s decision has been baffling from academics who did not raise a whimper of opposition when President Barack Obama killed an American citizen without a trial or a charge. When former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the “kill list” policy (that included the right to kill any American citizen), he was met with applause, not condemnation. Moreover, even the government conceded before the Supreme Court that official acts did deserve protection from prosecution. The issue was only where to draw that line. The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.
I felt that there were good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue. The reaction, however, of politicians and pundits is to again denounce and even threaten the justices. Rage has again replaced reason as commentators misrepresent the opinion and race to the bottom in reckless rhetoric. It is not clear what these paper-bag pundits are more upset about: the fact that the Court ruled in favor of immunity or that the Court again failed to yield to years of harassment and threats from the left. What they fail to understand is that this is precisely the moment that the Court was designed for.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Age of Rage: Critics Unleash Threats and Abuse on the Court Following the Presidential Immunity Decision”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. However, it is not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith will yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence. Continue reading “Too Clever By Half: Justice Jackson’s Suggested Path Forward for Jack Smith Could Lead to Another Reversal”
Below is my column in the Hill on the Supreme Court decision on Friday in Fischer v. U.S. to reject hundreds of charges in January 6th cases for the obstruction of legal proceedings. For many cases, that will leave relatively minor offenses like trespass or unlawful entry. It is only the latest blow to efforts to portray the riot as a massive conspiracy to overthrow the government. While portrayed by pundits and press in strictly ideological terms, it actually produced an interesting line up with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voting with the majority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voting in dissent.
Here is the column:
Below is my column in The Hill on last week’s cases and the sharp contrast to the handling of the Trump case in Manhattan. Two of these cases hold particular resonance with some of us who criticized Bragg’s prosecution.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Land that Law Forgot: The Supreme Court and the New York Legal Wasteland”
Below is my column in The Hill on the renewed attacks on Justice Samuel Alito after a liberal activist secretly taped a dinner conversation with him and his wife. The feigned outrage of pundits and politicians is absurdly unconnected to anything even remotely surprising or unethical in the comments.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Capitol Vapors: The Faux Outrage Over the Alito Flags and Tapes”
There has been much talk about the decision of Judge Juan Merchan not to recuse himself from the Trump trial in Manhattan. I do believe that Merchan should have recused himself but I admit that this can be a difficult question. I wanted to address this question since it continues to be raised by the former president and others in the controversial trial. Continue reading “The Thomas Analogy: Why Recusal Was More Compelling for Merchan in Manhattan”
When Robert Mueller appointed Andrew Weissmann as one of his top advisers, many of us warned that it was a poor choice. Weissmann seemed intent to prove those objections correct in increasingly unhinged and partisan statements. This week, he ratcheted up the rhetoric even further in claiming that the nation is “one vote away” from the end of democracy if the Supreme Court does not embrace the sweeping claims of Special Counsel Jack Smith. Continue reading “Weissmann: “One Vote Away from … the End of Democracy””
Below is my column in the New York Post on yesterday’s oral arguments on presidential immunity. As expected, with the exception of the three liberal justices, the Court appears to be struggling to find a more nuanced approach that would avoid the extreme positions of both parties. Rather than take a header off either cliff, the justices seem interested in a controlled descent into the depths of Article II.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Constitutional Abyss: Justices Signal a Desire to Avoid Both Cliffs on Presidential Immunity”
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up Fischer v. United States, a case that could fundamentally change many cases of January 6th defendants, including the prosecution of former president Donald Trump. The case involves the interpretation of a federal statute prohibiting obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. Continue reading “Supreme Court Takes Up Obstruction Case Affecting J6 Defendants”