Free Republic

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito suggested Thursday during oral arguments regarding presidential immunity that criminalizing individuals just because they question government-run elections would destabilize true democracy. Special counsel Jack Smith indicted former President Donald Trump for questioning the administration of the 2020 election. The high court is now hearing challenges as to whether presidents have immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office that fall within the scope of their presidential duties. “Let me end with just a question about, what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society, which is something that we all want?”...

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Thursday on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. The justices have taken up the monumental question of if, and if so to what extent, former presidents enjoy immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts during their time in office. The high court's decision will determine if Trump stands trial before the November election on four charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. Throughout arguments, multiple of the justices made clear they were looking...

In the most blatant move of hatred of the United States Constitution to date, U.S. Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Melanie Stansbury (NM-01), and Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT) have filed legislation which will create an Office of the Inspector General to ensure accountability of justices in the Supreme Court of the United States.The U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law). This bold move by house Democrats basically erases the separation of powers in United...

In the final argument scheduled for its 2023-2024 term, the Supreme Court will hear argument on Thursday in former President Donald Trump’s historic bid for criminal immunity. The question before the justices is whether Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The court’s answer will determine not only whether Trump’s trial in Washington, D.C., before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, originally scheduled for March 4 but now on hold, can go forward, but also whether the former president’s trials in Florida and Georgia can proceed. Jury selection is currently...

“We’re talking about sleeping … that is a basic function,” said the nation’s first Black female justice. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that it is “cruel and unusual” to punish unhoused individuals for sleeping in public spaces. “We’re talking about sleeping … that is a basic function,” Justice Jackson said during Monday’s oral arguments in a case that could result in the criminalization of homelessness. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard more than two hours of arguments in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson. The justices listened to both sides of the case to determine whether...

Though still far behind the number of cases granted for the next term this time last year, the court on Monday added two new cases to its docket for the 2024-2025 term. The justices agreed to weigh in on a challenge to a rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulating so-called “ghost guns” – firearms without serial numbers that virtually anyone can assemble from parts, often purchased in a kit. Garland v. VanDerStok was one of two cases granted on Monday on a list of orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The dispute over...

The Supreme Court brushed aside a lawsuit Monday from Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake challenging the use of electronic voting machines in Arizona. Lake, who filed the lawsuit during her failed campaign for governor in 2022, challenged whether the state’s electronic voting machines assured “a fair and accurate vote.” Two lower courts dismissed the suit, finding that Lake and former Republican state lawmaker Mark Finchem had not been harmed in a way that allowed them to sue. Calling the precise nature of Lake’s claim “not clear,” the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said the lawsuit was based on speculative...

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a Biden administration appeal over the regulation of difficult-to-trace ghost guns that had been struck down by lower courts. The justices by a 5-4 vote had previously intervened to keep the regulation in effect during the legal fight. Ghost guns, which lack serial numbers, have been turning up at crime scenes with increasing regularity. The regulation, which took effect in 2022, changed the definition of a firearm under federal law to include unfinished parts, like the frame of a handgun or the receiver of a long gun, so...

During oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito exposed the Biden administration’s inexcusable practice of selective prosecution of protesters and rioters. The case, Fischer v. United States, involved the contention by Pennsylvanian Joseph Fischer that the charges of “obstruct[ion of] … any official proceeding,” based on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), should not apply to his actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Fischer, who also was charged with assaulting police officers, is hardly a sympathetic figure. His claims that he wasn’t trying to obstruct or “impede” official (and important) congressional business, in the ordinary (nonlegal)...

We have often discussed how cities and universities will use the threat of protests to block or shutdown free speech, particularly of conservative speakers or groups. We now have a major decision out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that could prove an important precedent in resisting the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States. In Meinecke v. City of Seattle, the court ruled against Seattle in a case involving the arrest of a pro-life protester. Matthew Meinecke was harassed by Antifa and other counterprotesters, but police arrested Meineche when he refused to yield...

WASHINGTON (AP) — The most significant case in decades on homelessness has reached the Supreme Court as record numbers of people in America are without a permanent place to live. The justices on Monday will consider a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. A political cross section of officials in the West and California, home to nearly one-third of the nation’s homeless population, argue those decisions have restricted them from “common sense” measures intended to keep homeless encampments from...

Former President Trump warned of the consequences of losing his presidential immunity argument, saying that if he loses that protection, so will "crooked" President Joe Biden. > The former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee argued that presidential immunity is essential to the proper functioning of the presidency in a Friday post to his Truth Social account. "Without presidential immunity, it would be impossible for a president to properly function, putting the United States of America in great and everlasting danger!" he posted, in all capital letters. "If they take away my presidential immunity, they take away crooked Joe Biden’s...

Under a legal theory endorsed by the 5th Circuit, Martin Luther King Jr. could have been liable for other people’s violence.In his last protest march, Martin Luther King Jr. led a parade of demonstrators down Beale Street in Memphis, lending his support to striking sanitation workers. After a few young black men started breaking storefront windows, the indiscriminate police response killed one suspected looter and injured dozens of protesters. Under a legal theory blessed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, King could have been held liable for the unanticipated harm that ensued from that March 1968...

by Julie KellyAs I noted yesterday, Elizabeth Prelogar totally misrepresented (lied?) how DOJ routinely handles sentencing requests for those convicted of 1512c2. Under questioning from Kavanaugh about prison sentences, Prelogar tried to make it sound like 1512c2 defendants with other nonviolent offenses (common misdemeanors) only get about 24 months in jail. She quickly mentioned the "Brock" case--referring to Larry Brock, a man from Texas convicted at bench trial of 1512c2 and 5 misdemeanors--and the "enhancement" recently overturned by DC appellate court in 1512c2 convictions. So what did DOJ ask for in Brock case? Not 24-26 months as Prelogar attempted to...

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday morning in the case of Fischer v. United States, one of the many criminal cases arising out of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Like defendants in a large subset of those cases, Joseph Fischer was charged, among other offenses, with obstruction of an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). Fischer’s case in the Supreme Court challenges whether the events of that day can be prosecuted using this obstruction statute. Most of the justices seemed dubious, or at a minimum concerned, about the Department of Justice’s very broad interpretation of the...

MINNEAPOLIS — The nation's highest court has rejected an appeal from MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined Lindell's appeal over the FBI's seizure of his phone. It was taken in 2022 while Lindell was at a Hardee's drive-thru window in Mankato. The U.S. government was investigating accusations of Lindell sharing sensitive voting system information. The case is just one of several recent legal battles for Lindell. In March, a judge evicted MyPillow from a facility in Shakopee after the landlord filed a lawsuit claiming the company was at least $200,000 behind on rent payments. A month...

On Tuesday, oral arguments commenced in the case of Fischer vs. United States, scrutinizing the legitimacy of felony charges of obstructing an official proceeding against individuals involved in the January 6 United States Capitol riot. The court's ruling will carry significant weight, as it could potentially influence the fate of hundreds of defendants from the January 6 riot and potentially undermine certain federal charges against Donald Trump. Currently, the conservative wing of the court has expressed doubt regarding the government's case, which U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is making. Notably, Justice Neil Gorsuch posed a question that was epic, to...

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Fischer v. United States and at issue is statute 18 USC §1512(c)(2): Whoever corruptly— (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on Fischer v United...

The Department of Injustice (DOJ) is using a statute called “obstructed a Congressional proceeding” to prosecute hundreds of these protesters simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. This statute is a serious felony with the potential of 20 years behind bars. CNN notes that this case also has implications for President Donald Trump, who was charged by corrupt special counsel Jack Smith for exercising his First Amendment rights on that fateful day. Justice Neil Gorsuch stole the show this morning by blowing up the foundation of the DOJ’s case against the nonviolent J6 protesters. While the Trump supporters simply exercised...

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas faced criticism on Tuesday over comments he made during a case focused on the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. "In oral argument today, Justice Thomas is minimizing the severity of the 1/6 insurrection at the Capitol. Perhaps that's because his wife was part of the conspiracy. What a disgrace that he's sitting on this case," lawyer and former CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Thomas made comments on Tuesday as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case relating to the Capitol riot following the 2020 presidential election with...