Free Republic

Nineteen retired generals, admirals, and former top civilian defense officials have filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing former President Donald Trump’s plea for immunity from prosecution, claiming that granting such a request would pose a significant threat to national security. The Supreme Court is set to deliberate on Trump’s presidential immunity argument on April 25, as reported by The Gateway Pundit. The Supreme Court will deliberate on whether a president can be shielded from legal consequences for actions taken while in office. The decision, which may not arrive until late June, according to analysts, has significant repercussions...

A federal appeals panel ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump can face trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, rejecting the former president’s claims that he is immune from prosecution. The decision marks the second time in as many months that judges have spurned Trump’s immunity arguments and held that he can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. But it also sets the stage for additional appeals from the Republican ex-president that...

Appeals court denies Donald Trump immunity in DC election case

So, will this anti-Flynn judge drop the case? Well, Margot Cleveland wrote in The Federalist that he could opt to keep this clown show going: …as the respondent to Flynn’s petition for mandamus, Sullivan has the same options a normal litigant would have, including seeking review of the panel decision by the entire D.C. Circuit or requesting review by the United States Supreme Court. Given that Judge Robert Wilkins dissented from the majority opinion, authored by Judge Neomi Rao and joined by Judge Karen Henderson, Sullivan might just opt for open defiance. Such a course of action would be a...

A divided federal appeals court on Friday seemed reluctant to order the judge presiding over former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s prosecution to dismiss the case ahead of scheduled arguments in the trial court next month. During a Friday hearing before a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, two judges expressed reservations about preventing U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan from ruling on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss Flynn’s criminal case. Sullivan drew attention last month when he took the unusual step of appointing a retired federal judge to argue against dropping the charges and...

A three panel DC Appeals Court Panel, Judge Henderson, Judge Wilkins and Judge Rao have ordered Michael Flynn’s Judge, Emett Sullivan, to respond to the defense petition for a writ of mandamus within ten days: Quoting the U.S. vs Fokker ruling the panel is not responding directly to the Flynn petition with an immediate decision; instead they are requiring Judge Sullivan to explain his decision to engage with extra-party amicus actions despite the DOJ and Flynn defense agreement on the motion to dismiss. The order can be viewed as a smart move by the appeals panel because Judge Sullivan has...

A federal appeals court in Washington threw out a lawsuit accusing President Trump of illegally profiting off his private businesses while in office, ruling that the Democratic lawmakers who brought the suit lack standing to bring the case. A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday said in a 12-page decision that the dispute centering around the Constitution's emoluments clauses has no place in the court system. "The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself,...

A federal appeals court in Washington threw out a lawsuit accusing President Trump of illegally profiting off his private businesses while in office, ruling that the Democratic lawmakers who brought the suit lack standing to bring the case.

On Tuesday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Americans born in Jerusalem cannot put “Israel” as place of birth on their birth certificates. Judge Karen Henderson wrote that the president “exclusively holds the power to determine whether to recognize a foreign sovereign,” and that the president had not recognized Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Congress passed a law in 2002 dictating that Americans living in Jerusalem could label their children’s birthplace “Israel,” but the State Department has refused to enforce that law for over a decade. Over 50,000 Americans have...

A federal appeals court Tuesday declared unconstitutional a law allowing Americans born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their birthplace on their U.S. passports, the latest ruling in a case that stretches back a decade. … The case was brought by parents of an American boy named Menachem Zivotofsky, who was born in a Jerusalem hospital soon after the law was passed. The parents wanted to list Israel as his birthplace, but the U.S. has refused to recognize any nation's sovereignty over Jerusalem since Israel’s creation in 1948—so the boy’s U.S. passport only says “Jerusalem” as his birthplace. The Bush...