President Joe Biden walks on stage to speak during the NAACP national convention Tuesday, July 16, 2024, in Las Vegas.
| Photo Credit: AP

U.S. President Joe Biden is preparing to propose a major Supreme Court overhaul in the coming week that would include term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday citing two sources familiar with the plans.

Mr. Biden is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad presidential immunity, the Post reported, adding that Mr. Biden discussed at the move in a video conference with the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Saturday.

ALSO READ | Gun control, the Second Amendment and the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court | Explained 

Mr. Biden has previously shunned calls to overhaul the top court with term limits or by expanding the number of seats on the bench. Some Democrats have made calls for the changes following former President Donald Trump’s appointment of three conservative justices.

In October, a bipartisan group of legal experts expressed their support for 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices as a way to deter partisanship and improve the judiciary’s reputation.

Washington:

President Joe Biden warned on Monday that the US Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential immunity sets a “dangerous precedent” that Donald Trump would exploit if elected in November.

“For all practical purposes today’s decision almost certainly means there are no limits to what a president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent,” Biden said in a speech at the White House.

“The American people must decide if they want to entrust… once again, the presidency to Donald Trump, now knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it,” he added.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

The US Supreme Court on Monday ordered lower courts to review a pair of Republican-backed state laws that imposed restrictions on social media companies to moderate content, sidestepping a ruling on their constitutional validity.

Tech industry trade groups, which welcomed the decision, had challenged the laws passed in 2021 by conservative Republican lawmakers in Florida and Texas as part of a broader pushback against perceived anti-conservative bias by major platforms such as Meta-owned Facebook and X, formerly Twitter.

The companies denied that they were censoring conservative viewpoints under the guise of content moderation, as their advocates argued that the laws quashed the platforms’ own First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether it was constitutional for states to pass such legislation, leaving the two laws in limbo as it instructed the lower courts for a thorough review.

Florida’s measure bars social media platforms from pulling content from politicians, a law that was passed after former president Donald Trump was suspended from Twitter and Facebook in the wake of the January 6, 2021 assault on the US Capitol.

In Texas, the law stops sites from pulling content based on a “viewpoint” and is also intended to thwart what conservatives see as censorship by tech platforms such as Facebook and YouTube against right-wing ideas.

Neither law has gone into effect due to the litigation.

The challenge to the laws were brought by associations representing big tech companies, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice, who argue that the First Amendment allows platforms to have the freedom to handle content as they see fit.

– ‘Orwellian’ –

“We are encouraged that a majority of the court has made clear that the government cannot tilt public debate in its favored direction,” CCIA president Matt Schruers said in a statement.

“There is nothing more Orwellian than government attempting to dictate what speech should be carried, whether it is a newspaper or a social media site.”

The decision was also welcomed by tech advocacy groups.

“The government does not have the right to impose rules on how companies like Meta and Google should accomplish” platform accountability measures, said Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at the watchdog Free Press.

“These laws would have further ratcheted up the amount of hate and disinformation online while undermining both the meaning and the intent of the First Amendment,” she added.

But other advocates cautioned that the decision must not absolve tech firms of their responsibility to address threats to public safety and democracy.

“Today’s unanimous opinion ensures platforms can enforce their community and safety standards during a critical election year,” said Nicole Gill, executive director of the watchdog Accountable Tech.

“But make no mistake: this is not an excuse for platforms to continue to shrug off their role in the desecration of democracy and proliferation of a myriad of societal harms.”

Monday’s decision comes after the Supreme Court last week rejected a Republican-led bid to curb government contact with social media companies to moderate their content.

The decision handed a win to President Joe Biden’s administration and top government agencies ahead of the presidential vote in November, allowing them to continue notifying major platforms including Facebook and X about what they deem as false or hateful content.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

Prosecutors overstepped in charging January 6 rioters with obstruction for trying to prevent certification of the 2020 presidential election, the US Supreme Court said Friday, throwing hundreds of cases into doubt.

The matter was brought to the court through an appeal by former police officer Joseph Fischer, a supporter of former president Donald Trump who entered the Capitol in Washington with hundreds of others on January 6, 2021.

Writing the opinion for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said prosecutors’ interpretation of the law would “criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyist(s) to decades in prison.”

The government “must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so,” he wrote.

The case was decided 6-3, with Ketanji Brown Jackson joining with the court’s conservatives. Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump, penned the dissent, which was joined by liberal judges Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

It now heads back to a lower court, which will decide whether Fischer’s indictment can still stand in light of the narrower interpretation of “obstruction.”

In all, 52 rioters have been convicted and sentenced only on obstruction charges, with 27 currently incarcerated, the Department of Justice said in a statement. Some 249 people were charged with obstruction in addition to another felony or misdemeanor.

“The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland.

– Meaning of ‘otherwise’ –

At the core of the case was how to interpret the word “otherwise” in the relevant statute, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was enacted after the destruction of documents in the 2001 Enron scandal.

This imposes up to 20 years in prison for whoever corruptly tampers with documents in an attempt to prevent them from being used in official proceedings, or “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

The word “otherwise” grants prosecutors excessive latitude, allowing them to pursue charges that far exceed the scope of Congress’s initial purpose, the majority said.

“The peaceful transfer of power is a fundamental democratic norm, and those who attempted to disrupt it in this way inflicted a deep wound on this Nation,” wrote Jackson, concurring with the court’s conservatives. “But today’s case is not about the immorality of those acts.”

In her dissent, Barrett said the fact that the joint session by Congress on January 6 was an official proceeding was not in dispute.

“Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut,” she wrote, accusing the majority of performing “textual backflips to find some way — any way” to narrow the reach of the relevant subsection.

This case also has potentially significant implications for Trump, who faces four felony charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith over his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The Republican presidential candidate is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding — the session of Congress held to certify Biden’s victory.

He is also charged with conspiracy to deny Americans the right to vote and to have their votes counted.

But this case is on hold until the Supreme Court rules on Trump’s claims he is immune from criminal prosecution, which the judges are now expected to deliver on Monday.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law prohibiting a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm.

“When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 8-1 opinion.

The case was the first involving gun rights to come before the court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority, since a major ruling it issued last year loosening gun restrictions.

In last year’s decision, the nation’s highest court said it would authorize only “reasonable” exceptions to the Second Amendment right to bear arms and would rely on historical precedents when it comes to regulating firearms.

The ruling left lower courts struggling to determine whether gun restrictions before them are consistent with “the history and traditions” of firearms regulation in the United States in the late 18th to the 19th century.

On the basis of that decision, an ultraconservative appeals court ruled in March that a federal law banning gun ownership by people with domestic violence restraining orders was unconstitutional, for lack of historical precedent.

Roberts wrote that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by Elon Musk of a settlement that requires the billionaire to have some of his social media posts about Tesla pre-approved by a company lawyer.

The nation’s highest court rejected the Tesla and X owner’s appeal without comment.

Musk was seeking to overturn restrictions imposed on him by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) following a 2018 post on Twitter, now X.

In the tweet, Musk said he had acquired funding to take Tesla private, which caused a spike in the company’s stock price, but he did not provide any proof or file paperwork with the SEC.

The tweet was ruled to be “false and misleading” and shareholders accused Tesla of securities fraud.

The SEC ordered Musk to step down as chair of Tesla’s board of directors and pay a $20 million fine.

The government agency also required that Musk’s social media posts directly related to the business of the electric vehicle company be vetted by a lawyer.

The billionaire filed a petition with the Supreme Court in December seeking to undo the agreement, claiming it was an unconstitutional infringement of his right to free speech.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The US Supreme Court hears arguments on Thursday on Donald Trump’s claim that he enjoys sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took as president, a claim that has delayed by months a case accusing him of trying to overturn his 2020 defeat.

Here is a look at why Trump’s claims have delayed a trial and what is likely to happen next:

Why has the immunity appeal delayed the election subvrsion case?

The federal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith charging Trump with trying to overturn his election defeat — one of four criminal cases the Republican presidential candidate faces — has been paused since December while the immunity argument plays out. 

Criminal defendants are not usually able to appeal court rulings until after a trial if they are convicted, but Trump was able to file an immediate appeal because the immunity argument bears on whether he must even face a trial.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, granted Trump’s request for a pause while his appeal plays out, and prosecutors acknowledged the issue would need to be resolved before Trump can face a jury.

The March 4 trial initially scheduled in the case was postponed; no new date has been set.

Why is Trump seeking delay?

If Trump wins the Nov. 5 election, he could order the US Justice Department to drop its election subversion case, and another case involving his mishandling of classified documents after leaving the White House. He could also try to use his powers as president to pardon himself of any federal crimes.

Delaying the trial until after the election would also prevent voters from hearing potentially damaging testimony about Trump’s refusal to accept his defeat in 2020 and his attempts to hold on to power.

How might the Supreme Court rule?

If a majority of the Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three Trump appointees, agrees with Trump’s claim, it could decide to dismiss the case in its entirety.

The justices could also adopt the position of lower courts and find that Trump has no immunity from the charges, setting the stage for a trial.

A third option would recognize that presidents may be protected from prosecution in some circumstances and direct the trial court to determine whether that immunity applies to the allegations against Trump. 

That outcome could prompt further delays as the trial judge decides whether parts of the prosecution’s case will need to be tossed out.

What happens after court rules?

The court is expected to release its decision by June and if it does not order the case dismissed, the prosecution would resume.

Chutkan, the judge, has signaled that Trump’s legal team will likely have about three months to prepare his defense after that, which could leave Chutkan to decide whether to schedule a trial beginning in September or even October — when early voting will be underway in some states.

Trump’s lawyers are likely to argue that trying the case at the peak of the presidential campaign would amount to election interference. 

Prosecutors have argued the public has a right to a speedy trial.

The Supreme Court could throw another wrinkle into the case with its ruling on a separate case on whether a federal obstruction law applies to participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Two of the counts against Trump relate to that law and Trump’s role in the riot.

Prosecutors have argued that the charges against Trump could survive even a narrower interpretation of the law, but it will be up to the judge to decide what impact the Supreme Court’s opinion will have on Trump’s case.

Could the immunity ruling affect other criminal cases against Trump? 

Trump has made presidential immunity claims in two other criminal cases, a state prosecution accusing him of attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia and the federal case over mishandling classified documents. 

A ruling that Trump is entitled to some legal protection for official actions could complicate those cases. Prosecutors have called Trump’s immunity argument in the classified documents case frivolous, noting that the charges relate to Trump’s conduct after he left the White House in 2021.

An opinion denying Trump’s immunity claim would remove a significant hurdle for prosecutors in both cases, blunting Trump’s attempts at further delaying the trials. 

The ruling would not affect the ongoing criminal trial in New York over hush money payments to a porn star, which does not involve official actions Trump took as president.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)