Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter Readers. The first week of the Supreme Court’s new term is in the books. There were hearings about “ghost guns” and a rare request from Oklahoma’s top cop to stop an execution. Additionally, we were reminded that the investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his appointment was not really an investigation.
The court started on Monday with the usual annual rejection of petitions piling up over the summer. Among the many denials were a call from the Biden administration to protect emergency abortion care in Texas and a challenge from the Republican Party in Pennsylvania to the president’s voter registration.
Biden’s regulations on ‘ghost guns’ could be safe if Tuesday’s oral argument in Garland v. VanDerStok is any indication. Before the hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett had joined the three Democratic appointees to temporarily allow regulation of the kits and parts used to make the weapons, which are harder for law enforcement to track. Not surprisingly, the hearing reflected a similar dynamic.
We won’t know until we see the final ruling, which, like the other cases to be heard this term, should come in July.
One of the court’s strange hearings happened Wednesday in Glossip v. Oklahoma. Part of the strangeness came from the fact that death row inmate Richard Glossip didn’t actually say “v.” was. Oklahoma. That’s because the state’s Republican attorney general agrees the suspect should get a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. But the justices appointed a third party to argue in defense of a state court ruling that, if affirmed, would place Glossip (who maintains his innocence) in the death chamber.
While Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito It sounded unsurprisingly ready to rule against Glossip, but the hearing left it unclear how a majority of the court will handle the life-or-death appeal. It could come down to the votes of Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh.
Speaking of Kavanaughhe was personally in the news again this week for the sexual misconduct claims that nearly kept him off the court during his confirmation process. A new report from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, DI, examined the Trump White House’s control over the FBI’s alleged investigation. “In any case,” the report said, “the White House may have used the tip line to steer FBI investigators away from derogatory or damaging information.”
Next weekthe justices will hear a handful more arguments to complete the October hearing. In keeping with the quirky theme of Glossip’s death penalty case alignment, one of the hearings next week is in San Francisco against EPA. That is, the caricatured liberal enclave against the agency charged with protecting the environment (to the extent permitted by the Roberts Court). Backed by industry groups, San Francisco is complaining about the way the federal government is enforcing water pollution regulations. The Stands from California, however, supports the FBI.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s legal battle continues against the government he wants to lead again. His attorneys are trying to prevent more negative information about their client from emerging in the federal election interference case. They argued that the special counsel is engaging in “election interference” as he continues to prosecute the case accusing the former president of criminally trying to undermine the last election he lost to Joe Biden. They said they want to “evaluate litigation options” if U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan turns against them if they publish more damaging information — this time about the attachment to special counsel Jack Smith’s massive immunity letter.
Chutkan ruled against them Thursday, but we don’t have any new information to investigate yet because she suspended her ruling for a week so the Trump team can “evaluate trial options.” We should know next week whether the Republican candidate will attempt to legally challenge Chutkan’s final order before the election.
But the more important problem What hangs over the prosecution is whether Trump wins next month’s election and then overturns the case.
Election Day is still 25 days away. The question I asked to kick off this semester’s newsletter: Will the Supreme Court decide the election? – is still an open one. But for those rightfully concerned about such an event, election law expert Rick Hasen has a new piece explaining why it might not happen. He writes that “there is reason to believe that the court will stay out of the election in any significant way unless we have a close Florida-style election in 2000 or in the unlikely event that elected or election officials sway the outcome of the trying to undermine elections.” to vote.”
The ‘unless’ and ‘unlikely’ parts of that are still concerning, but that’s where we are now.
Do you have any questions or comments for me? I’d love to hear from you! Send an email deadlinelegal@nbcuni.com for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
