Search

The article in TIME Magazine discusses the growing influence of wealthy donors, particularly tech billionaire Elon Musk, in American politics. It highlights how Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United have allowed a small number of donors to have a significant impact on political campaigns. The article also raises concerns about the erosion of laws and norms meant to restrain presidential power, particularly under the Trump administration. It calls for reforms to restore meaningful checks on both presidential power and the influence of wealthy donors in politics to protect democracy. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on parallels between the Supreme Court's Dred Scott v. Sandford and Trump v. United States, illustrating how both decisions align with political interests and undermine democratic principles. It highlights Chief Justice John Roberts's extension of presidential immunity, likening it to the historical injustices of the Taney Court and critiquing its impact on the Court's legitimacy and accountability.

The Supreme Court issued momentous opinions this term broadening presidential immunity, preserving access to the abortion pill, limiting the power of administrative agencies, and more. While employment and labor law may have flown a bit under the radar, there was no lack of activity as the justices handed down notable rulings affecting whistleblowers, Title VII, the arbitration of workplace disputes, and union organizing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States, which granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution, a concept previously unheard of. The decision has far-reaching implications, potentially allowing the president to commit crimes without consequences. The article highlights the dangers of unchecked presidential power and calls for legal professionals to take action to uphold the rule of law in the face of this controversial ruling. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the Supreme Court's recent term and its decisions, highlighting a growing crisis of legitimacy amid concerns of partisanship and judicial overreach. It examines how the Court's controversial rulings, including those on bribery, presidential immunity, and agency authority, reflect a troubling shift that undermines public trust and suggests political motivations behind its judgments.

The article explores whether former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken during their presidencies. It also discusses the separation of powers principle and historical precedents to argue against the claim of absolute immunity, emphasizing the necessity of upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability for alleged violations of federal criminal law.

The article explores whether former presidents, particularly Donald Trump, are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts during their presidencies. It also discusses legal arguments and historical precedents supporting absolute immunity, emphasizing the constitutional framework, separation of powers, and the lack of historical precedent for prosecuting former presidents for official acts.

The article discusses the D.C. Circuit's ruling on presidential immunity, asserting that former presidents, including Donald Trump, are not immune from criminal prosecution. It also examines Trump's arguments for expansive immunity, citing legal precedent and historical evidence to reject his claims and affirm that former presidents can be held accountable for criminal acts committed during their tenure.

The article delves into the legal concept of presidential immunity, examining its historical precedent and its relevance to the prosecution of former President Donald Trump. It also discusses the various arguments surrounding presidential immunity, including its scope and applicability in criminal proceedings, as well as its intersection with principles of separation of powers and double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the scope of presidential immunity in relation to a criminal indictment against former President Donald Trump. Conservative justices expressed sympathy for the idea of presidential immunity, citing concerns about future presidents being subjected to prosecution and the potential chilling effect on their decision-making. Trump's lawyer argued that prosecuting a president for official acts would distort decision-making and undermine the presidency. The liberal justices raised concerns about the potential for emboldening presidents to commit crimes if total immunity is granted. The decision will have significant implications for American democracy and the presidency. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States, which significantly alters the legal landscape regarding presidential immunity and accountability. It argues that this ruling, along with previous decisions, reflects a shift towards protecting political figures like former U.S. president Donald Trump from legal consequences and undermines democratic principles by potentially placing the presidency above the law.

The article discusses the need to protect press freedom against threats from the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. Topics explored include the presidential immunity bestowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to Trump, the libel lawsuits filed by Trump against several news organizations over their news coverage of the 2016 and 2024 U.S. presidential elections, and the political implications of the proposed legislation Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.

The article from Mother Jones discusses how former President Trump could potentially use authoritarian tactics to turn the federal government into an instrument of repression. It outlines scenarios such as mass deportations, loyalty oaths, politicizing federal agencies, and using the military for political purposes. The article warns of the potential consequences of such actions, including a culture of fear, surveillance, and the erosion of civil liberties within the government. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding presidential immunity, particularly in the case of Donald Trump facing criminal prosecution for his actions while in office. It also discusses the nature of official versus private acts, the potential consequences of criminal prosecution for former presidents, and the implications for democratic stability.

The article "40 questions to test your knowledge of this year's events" from Week journal covers a wide range of topics from politics to arts and leisure. It includes questions about notable events and figures from the year, such as statements made by political leaders, Supreme Court rulings, and international developments. The questions aim to challenge readers' knowledge and understanding of key events that occurred throughout the year. [Extracted from the article]

A United Nations human rights body has called for the immediate release of Nigerien President Mohamed Bazoum, who has been detained since a 2023 military coup. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stated that Bazoum is being held in precarious conditions and has suffered serious health problems, in violation of international law. The president, facing charges of treason, risks being sentenced to death by a military court if a trial proceeds. Niger has been under military rule since the coup in July 2023, led by interim President General Abdourahamane Tiani. [Extracted from the article]

President-elect Trump has requested the Supreme Court to halt the sentencing in his New York hush money case, which involves 34 felony counts related to payments made to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election. The appeal's outcome is pending as of the publication date. Trump's legal team argues that evidence in the trial pertains to his official actions as president and should be shielded by presidential immunity. Despite a rejection of his attempt to dismiss the case, Judge Juan Merchan indicated that Trump may not face jail time or probation. [Extracted from the article]

The US Supreme Court has allowed President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing in his hush money criminal case to proceed in New York, despite his claims of presidential immunity. The decision, made over four dissents, is seen as a symbolic setback for Trump as he prepares to begin his second term in office. Trump argued that the sentencing would be a distraction to his presidential transition and undermine his standing as a world leader during his second term. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court's ruling comes after Judge Juan Merchan and two New York appeals courts ordered the sentencing to take place Friday. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

President-elect Donald Trump has requested the US Supreme Court to halt his hush money criminal case sentencing scheduled for January 10. Despite a New York appellate judge's rejection of his plea to vacate the guilty verdict on 34 felony counts, Trump is seeking to avoid sentencing before his inauguration on January 20. Trump argues that the verdict infringes on his presidential immunity, even though he has not yet taken office. Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, has indicated that Trump will not face jail time due to his status as president-elect. [Extracted from the article]

Donald Trump has lost an appeal to delay his Jan. 10 sentencing in a hush money criminal case in New York. Despite the loss, Trump still has options to try to stop the proceedings as he prepares to become the 47th US president. The lower court judge overseeing the trial has indicated that Trump won't face jail time or probation, but Trump argues that upholding the verdict would violate presidential immunity. The appeals court judge expressed skepticism of Trump's arguments during a hearing, emphasizing that Trump's status as president-elect does not grant him immunity from prosecution. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump's sentencing in his hush money criminal case is set for January 10 after a New York judge denied his request for a delay. The judge, Juan Merchan, has indicated that he will not sentence Trump to any time behind bars. Trump's lawyers argued for a delay while appealing recent rulings, but the judge found their arguments repetitive. The case involves Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts related to concealing payments to an adult film star before the 2016 election. [Extracted from the article]

Donald Trump has requested a New York appeals court to postpone his hush money sentencing scheduled for January 10, as he seeks to overturn his guilty verdict before his inauguration. The court ruled that the jury's verdict cannot be vacated due to presidential immunity not extending to a president-elect, but indicated that Trump would not face jail time. Trump's lawyers argue that any sentence, even an unconditional discharge, would be unconstitutional, and are appealing the decision. The case involves Trump being found guilty on 34 felony counts related to concealing payments to an adult film star before the 2016 election. [Extracted from the article]

Donald Trump has requested a delay in his hush money sentencing to appeal his guilty verdict before his inauguration. The judge has indicated that Trump will not face jail time, but may receive an "unconditional discharge." Trump's lawyers argue that any sentence, even unconditional discharge, would be unconstitutional due to legal errors related to presidential immunity. The appeal will cover decisions rejecting Trump's immunity claims and the trial moving forward after his election win. [Extracted from the article]

Donald Trump has requested a New York appeals court to postpone his hush money sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10. His legal team is seeking to have his guilty verdict overturned due to his election victory, arguing that presidential immunity should extend to a president-elect. Trump's spokesperson criticized the sentencing as part of a "Witch Hunt" by the Manhattan District Attorney's office, emphasizing the need to end the politicization of the justice system. [Extracted from the article]

The article shares views about the separation of powers and checks and balances among the branches of the U.S. government. Topics discussed include criticism over the Supreme Court's decision about presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, President Joseph Biden's call for reforms to the Supreme Court and an enforceable code of ethics for justices, and the view that the nation should consider term limits both for the Supreme Court and for Congress.

The article discusses how Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity did not succeed in dismissing his conviction in the New York hush money case. The judge rejected Trump's argument, stating that evidence used in the trial was not affected by a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. Despite Trump's objections, the judge found the evidence against him to be overwhelming, leading to his conviction on 34 felony counts. The case is ongoing, with potential appeals and further legal proceedings ahead. [Extracted from the article]

A New York state court judge rejected Donald Trump's request to dismiss his conviction in a hush money case, citing that the evidence used against him was not subject to presidential immunity. The case involved Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, and he was found guilty of falsifying business records. Despite facing a possible four-year sentence, experts believe he may receive a lesser punishment or probation. Trump's victory in the election has raised doubts about the case's continuation, with his lawyers arguing that proceeding would undermine the presidency. [Extracted from the article]

President-elect Donald Trump has obtained a court order to pause a lawsuit filed against him by the co-founders of his social media platform, Truth Social, in order for a Delaware judge to consider whether presidential immunity applies to the case. The lawsuit involves civil claims, and the judge has agreed to halt the case for at least three months to evaluate Trump's request for immunity for himself and board members of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. The co-founders, Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss, allege that Trump prevented them from receiving an 8.6% stake in Trump Media when it went public, a claim that Trump disputes. [Extracted from the article]

President-elect Donald Trump, along with two board members of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., are seeking to have a lawsuit against them put on hold in Delaware Chancery Court to determine if presidential immunity applies to the case. The lawsuit was filed by Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss, former contestants on Trump's reality TV show, who allege that Trump unfairly diluted their stake in the company. Trump, Patel, and Nunes argue that they are temporarily immune from state civil litigation. The case stems from disputes over ownership stakes in the Truth Social platform, with Trump being the largest shareholder. [Extracted from the article]

Prosecutors don't want the conviction dropped entirely, but Trump is unlikely to be sentenced before 2029—if he is at all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under Korean law, a president is immune from prosecution on all matters except leading an insurrection or acts of treason, which Yoon Suk Yeol has been accused of after his martial law attempt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Donald Trump's lawyers are seeking to have his New York hush money conviction dismissed, citing President Joe Biden's pardon of his son as precedent for selective prosecution. Trump's team argues that the case against him was politically motivated and should be immediately dropped. The New York District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, is facing pressure to respond to Trump's request to dismiss the case. Trump's sentencing has been postponed as the judge decides how to proceed in light of his election victory. [Extracted from the article]

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. sought to ease tensions with Vice President Sara Duterte, expressing opposition to any impeachment proceedings against her. The escalating feud between the two politicians, which included death threats and hints of a possible coup, could potentially hinder economic reforms and pose risks to the country's growth. Marcos emphasized the importance of focusing on improving infrastructure and the business climate, urging troops to remain focused on their mission to defend the nation. Duterte's recent threats and actions have led to investigations and legal actions against her, with potential consequences if she fails to cooperate. [Extracted from the article]

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. expressed his opposition to any potential impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, referring to their feud as a minor issue. He emphasized that such actions would not benefit the Filipino people and would only distract Congress. The delay in Duterte's meeting with authorities, where she was to explain her alleged threat against Marcos, has intensified their conflict, potentially impacting economic reforms in the country. Duterte's scheduled appearance at the National Bureau of Investigation was postponed at her request, as investigations into her remarks and actions continue. [Extracted from the article]

The Philippines has postponed a meeting with Vice President Sara Duterte to discuss her comments about President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Duterte was summoned by the National Bureau of Investigation after allegedly threatening to have Marcos assassinated. The investigation has been rescheduled for December 11 at Duterte's request. Authorities are taking her claims of facing threats seriously and are also looking into allegations of assault and coercion against her and her security detail. [Extracted from the article]

Thirty-four felony convictions. Charges of fraud, election subversion, and obstruction. One place to keep track of the president-elect's legal troubles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent development, Donald Trump's lawyers have requested the immediate dismissal of his hush-money case, arguing that continuing with the prosecution would hinder the operation of the US government. Trump faces potential imprisonment for falsifying business records related to payments to an adult film star before the 2016 election. Prosecutors have indicated they will oppose any dismissal attempts but are open to delaying proceedings while Trump is in office. Trump's legal team asserts that the case, the only one of four criminal cases against him to reach trial, is in conflict with the Constitution and has asked for time to file a formal motion for dismissal. [Extracted from the article]