Supreme Court orders Trump financial records released to NY prosecutors

Yahoo – AFP, July 9, 2020

The US Supreme Court issued two rulings in cases involving President Donald
Trump's financial records (AFP Photo/Mandel NGAN)

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump must hand over his tax returns to prosecutors in New York but temporarily blocked Congress from accessing his financial records.

The rulings were a setback for Trump's claim to absolute immunity from criminal investigation but may allow him at the same time to keep his finances private until after the November presidential election.

The court ruled 7-2 against Trump in a case brought by Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat who is seeking eight years of the president's financial records in connection with an alleged "hush money" payment made to porn actress Stormy Daniels.

Trump's attorneys had claimed the president was immune from criminal investigation -- a claim rejected by the court.

"Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding," the court said. "We reaffirm that principle today."

The other case before the nation's highest court concerned a request by Democratic-led congressional committees for Trump's tax returns and financial records.

In a 7-2 ruling, the court sent the congressional case back to a lower court for further consideration, earning the president a reprieve of sorts.

Vance called the ruling "a tremendous victory for our nation's system of justice and its founding principle that no one -– not even a president -– is above the law.

"Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury's solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead," Vance said.

Even if Trump's financial records are turned over to prosecutors by his accounting firm Mazars they may remain hidden from public view because of grand jury secrecy.

Trump fired off a string of furious tweets following the rulings.

"This is about PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT," he tweeted.

"This is all a political prosecution," Trump said. "Now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!"

Nancy Pelosi, Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, said she would continue to press for Trump's financial records to be handed over to Congress.

"The Congress will continue to conduct oversight For The People, upholding the separation of powers that is the genius of our Constitution," Pelosi said. "We will continue to press our case in the lower courts."

US Supreme Court rejects key challenge to abortion rights

Yahoo – AFP, Charlotte PLANTIVE, June 29, 2020

Anti-abortion activists demonstrate in front of the US Supreme Court on June 29,
2020 (AFP Photo/NICHOLAS KAMM)

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that tightly restricted access to abortion in the first constitutional test of abortion rights since President Donald Trump named two conservative justices to the top court.

In a key victory for abortion rights activists, the justices voted 5-4 to overrule a state law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The Louisiana law "would drastically reduce the number and geographic distribution of abortion providers, making it impossible for many women to obtain a safe, legal abortion in the state," the ruling said.

Right-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's four progressives, frustrating abortion opponents who had hoped that Trump's appointments had tilted the high court firmly in their direction.

But Roberts gave them hope that a different challenge to abortion rights might succeed in the future in the conservative court.

He said his decision to join with the progressives in the case, June Medical Services v Russo, was strictly on institutional grounds, and not because he believed the Louisiana law was unconstitutional.

Instead, Roberts said that he was not prepared to reverse the precedent set by the court's 2016 decision -- made before Trump's justices arrived -- rejecting an identical Texas law.

Roberts said he continues to believe that the Texas case was wrongly decided.

However, he said, "The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike."

An anti-abortion activist reads to others the US Supreme Court's decision on a 

Louisiana law restricting abortion in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2020 (AFP 

Photo/NICHOLAS KAMM)

'Unelected justices'

The White House sharply criticized the decision, saying "unelected justices" intruded on the powers individual states have to set policies.

"In an unfortunate ruling today, the Supreme Court devalued both the health of mothers and the lives of unborn children," said a statement from spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany.

"States have legitimate interests in regulating any medical procedure -- including abortions -- to protect patient safety," McEnany said.

Supporters of the Louisiana and previous Texas laws had argued that clinics providing abortion services had substandard health and safety practices, an argument pro-abortion groups said was false.

Both sides saw the Louisiana case as a test of the court's view of abortion as a constitutional right.

Abortion foes have in their sights the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade case, in which the Supreme Court legalized a woman's right to an abortion.

Robert's view of the actual Louisiana law, along with the four other conservative justices who opposed the decision, suggests that the court has a potentially decisive five votes supporting other restrictions on abortion.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said they were relieved that the court blocked the Louisiana law.

"With this win, the clinics in Louisiana can stay open to serve the one million women of reproductive age in the state," she said in a statement.

"But we're concerned about tomorrow," she said. "Unfortunately, the court's ruling today will not stop those hell-bent on banning abortion."

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been a key vote in several
recent decisions that went against the White House (AFP Photo/Mandel NGAN)

Court frustrates Trump

The decision Monday kept the focus of both sides of the political spectrum on Roberts, who has been the key vote in several decisions that have frustrated conservatives and the Trump administration.

A centerpiece of Trump's promises to his supporters was to turn the court rightward with the appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the bench.

Yet earlier this month the court expanded equal protection rights to gay and transgender people, and sustained protections for certain undocumented immigrants that Trump had sought to end.

In the immigration case, Roberts also joined the four liberals in a 5-4 decision against the administration.

In the equal rights case, both Roberts and Gorsuch sided with their progressive colleagues, stunning conservatives who did not anticipate that a Trump appointee would support gay and transgender rights.

US top court rules civil rights law protects LGBT workers

Yahoo – AFP, June 15, 2020

US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch in February 2019 shaking hands with
US President Donald Trump: Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion banning
employers from firing LGBT employees on the basis of their sexual orientation
(AFP Photo/MANDEL NGAN)

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal protections against workplace discrimination apply equally to sexual orientation, contrary to the position taken by the administration of President Donald Trump.

The landmark decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination against employees because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.

"Today we must decide whether someone can be fired simply for being homosexual or transgender," the court said. "The answer is clear."

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights (LGBT) activists, as well as Democratic politicians and several major businesses had been demanding that the court spell out that the community was protected by the law.

"This is a huge victory for LGBTQ equality," said James Esseks, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's LGBTQ & HIV Project.

"The court has caught up to the majority of our country, which already knows that discriminating against LGBTQ people is both unfair and against the law," he said in a statement.

Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic governor of New York state, concurred on Twitter."This #SCOTUS decision is a major victory for #LGBTQ rights," he said

"No one should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity," he added.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal, a landmark victory for the LGBTQ community.

But rights activists feared that the appointment by Trump of two new conservative judges to the top court could hinder further wins for their cause.

Yet it was one of them, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority decision, joining with the court's four progressive judges and Chief Justice John Roberts.

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," Gorsuch wrote.

The ruling was a blow for the Trump administration, which had effectively thrown in its lot with employers.

"Sex refers to whether you were born woman or man, not your sexual orientation or gender identity," argued Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the government's position before the court. He said it is the job of Congress to update the law, not the justice system.

That position was echoed by Brett Kavanaugh, the other conservative judge appointed by Trump.

Despite his opposition, Kavanaugh wrote in his own separate dissent that the decision still represented an "important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans."

Donna Stephens, the wife of transgender plaintiff Aimee Stephens who died last month, hailed her late partner's struggle for justice after being sacked by a Detroit funeral parlor when she came out.

"For the last seven years of Aimes's life, she rose as a leader who fought against discrimination against transgender people, starting when she was fired for coming out as a woman, despite her recent promotion at the time.

"I am grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity," she said in a statement after the court pronounced its ruling.

US top court to weigh in on gay, transgender rights

Yahoo – AFP, April 22, 2019

The US Supreme Court is to take up a gay and transgender rights case (AFP Photo/
Eric BARADAT)

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court said Monday it will take up the question of whether gay and transgender workers are protected by federal law that bars discrimination in the workplace.

The nation's highest court is considering three related cases, one involving a funeral home worker who was fired after telling her employer she was a transgender woman and would be wearing women's clothing at work.

In the other two cases, gay workers said they were fired by their employers because of their sexual orientation.

The court will decide whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the absence of a ruling from the top US court, lower courts have issued contradictory decisions.

The case is likely to be heard in the fall with a ruling issued next year.

China's top court to handle intellectual property appeals

Yahoo – AFP, December 30, 2018

China is mulling a series of steps to strengthen protections against
IP theft (AFP Photo/CHANDAN KHANNA)

China's top court will rule on intellectual property cases for the first time from January 1, the government said, elevating the handling of an issue that has become a key complaint in the trade war with the US.

Washington and Beijing are currently in talks to resolve a bruising trade spat that has spooked markets worldwide. The two sides imposed tit-for-tat tariffs on more than $300 billion worth of goods this year, before agreeing to a 90-day truce on December 1.

The United States, along with the European Union, has long complained about lax enforcement of intellectual property rights in China. Forced technology transfers have been another major bone of contention for foreign companies operating in China.

Deputy Chief Justice Luo Dongchuan said Saturday that from the start of 2019 the Supreme Court would begin handling appeals on intellectual property rights cases, state-run Xinhua news agency reported. Such cases were previously handled by provincial-level high courts.

The move will "help prevent inconsistency of legal application and improve the quality and efficiency of trials," Luo said.

China is mulling a series of steps to strengthen protections against IP theft. IP includes intangible creations like patents, trademarks and copyrights.

The country's patent law is being amended to increase the compensation amount by up to five times.

Another draft law presented at a recent meeting of China's legislature, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, allows victims of intellectual property theft to sue for damages.

China's legislature also announced it is looking at a new law governing foreign investment that would prevent the forced transfer of technology and give foreign firms the same privileges as Chinese companies.

Chinese courts heard a total of 213,480 IP cases in 2017 -- 40 percent more than in 2016 and double the number heard in 2013, Xinhua reported.

After fierce battle, Gorsuch confirmed to US Supreme Court

Yahoo – AFP, Michael Mathes,  April 7, 2017

Neil Gorsuch testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his US
Supreme Court nomination March 22, 2017 (AFP Photo/MANDEL NGAN)

Washington (AFP) - The US Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court Friday, culminating a 13-month fight over the vacancy and rewarding President Donald Trump by bringing a conservative tilt back to the bench.

The federal judge from Colorado crossed the finish line in a 54-45 vote, one day after Trump's Republicans changed Senate rules to circumvent a Democratic blockade of his nomination.

"Today is a new day," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said ahead of the vote, seeking to put a positive stamp on what has been a contentious congressional process for the new Republican administration.

Gorsuch is "going to make an incredible addition to the court," McConnell said. "He's going to make the American people proud."

The White House has said it expects Gorsuch -- the youngest nominee for a generation -- to be sworn in as early as Monday.

The 49-year-old judge has been hailed by Republicans as a worthy successor to towering conservative justice Antonia Scalia, who died in February 2016 as the presidential race was gaining steam.

His ability to write incisive rulings, his defense of a strict reading of the Constitution and his traditionalist views have fueled comparisons with Scalia.

But Gorsuch's nomination was staunchly opposed by opposition Democrats, angry that Republicans refused to grant a hearing to then-president Barack Obama's pick to replace Scalia, Merrick Garland.

McConnell had argued that since it was an election year, the next president should pick the nominee.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of many of the most sensitive issues of American life and law. Its members are named to life terms so their influence is long-lasting.

The nine-justice court has had one seat vacant for more than a year amid the ensuing political battle, with Democrats and Republicans trading bitter accusations of blame.

US Supreme Court body, including the newly-confirmed ninth member, the

conservative-leaning Neil Gorsuch (AFP Photo/Gal ROMA, John SAEKI)

Travel ban on horizon

The fight came to a head Thursday as Democrats mounted a so-called filibuster that prevented Gorsuch's nomination from advancing to a final vote.

Senate Republican leaders countered with the so-called "nuclear option," a maneuver that changed the chamber's rules so that moving Gorsuch -- and all subsequent Supreme Court nominees -- to a final vote requires a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the traditional 60 votes.

The confirmation itself requires only a simple majority which Gorsuch easily received, with support from the chamber's majority Republicans and a handful of Democrats.

Gorsuch's confirmation is destined to shape the bench just as Trump is seeking approval of a key plank of his political platform: his executive order that halts entry to the United States from citizens of several Muslim-majority nations.

The so-called travel ban has been halted in lower federal courts, but experts expect it will make its way to the Supreme Court.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, believes Trump has reason for optimism if his travel ban makes it to the high court for review, possibly later this year.

"The court generally defers to the executive branch on immigration matters because immigration touches on national sovereignty and foreign relations issues" Yale-Loehr told AFP.

"That may be particularly true" with Gorsuch on the bench, he added.

"I believe (changing the confirmation rules) will make the Supreme Court a 

more partisan place. As a result, America's faith in the integrity of the court, 

and their trust in the basic impartiality of the law will suffer," Democrat 

Chuck Schumer said (AFP Photo/Mandel Ngan)

'More partisan?'

While Republicans have trumpeted Gorsuch's sterling reputation, Democrats expressed concern that he did not appropriately answer questions during his confirmation hearings about established precedent on race, education and abortion cases.

They also argued in days of Senate debate that his record shows he is a jurist who favors big business.

Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said Friday he hopes Gorsuch has listened to "our concerns about the Supreme Court increasingly drifting towards becoming a more pro-corporate court that favors employers, corporations and special interests over working America."

As for changing Senate rules to ram Gorsuch through, Schumer issued a warning for the future for the Supreme Court.

"I believe it will make the Supreme Court a more partisan place. As a result, America's faith in the integrity of the court, and their trust in the basic impartiality of the law will suffer," Schumer said.

Gorsuch replaces another conservative, so his appointment does not dramatically alter the ideological makeup of the court. It is the next court appointment -- whenever it comes -- that would presage such a shift.

Professor Thomas Lee of Fordham University School of Law predicted that Gorsuch's presence on the closely divided court will not automatically translate into more 5-4 wins for conservatives, at least not in particularly socially controversial cases.

Eighty-year-old Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987, "will remain the swing voter," Lee said.

"But some issues likely to be decided in the near future include questions of church-state relations regarding religion, exemptions for religious reasons, and state regulation of gun and abortion rights."

Death penalty may be on the way out in US: report

Yahoo – AFP, Sébastien Blanc, December 21, 2016

Executions in the US declined to 20 this year, the lowest since 1991 and well
below the 1999 peak of 98 executions, stoking hopes for opponents of
the death penalty (AFP Photo/NICHOLAS KAMM)

Washington (AFP) - The days of capital punishment may be numbered in the United States, with sharp reductions in new death sentences and executions carried out amid waning public support, according to a report released Wednesday.

The Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington-based nonprofit organization, said statistics point to a continued record decline in the use of killing as punishment.

"America is in the midst of a major climate change concerning capital punishment," said Robert Dunham, DPIC's executive director and the author of the report.

"Whether it's concerns about innocence, costs, and discrimination, availability of life without parole as a safe alternative, or the questionable way in which states are attempting to carry out executions, the public grows increasingly uncomfortable with the death penalty each year."

Though two-thirds of US states still allow the death penalty, this year is expected to end with 31 new death sentences, the DPIC said in a year-end report.

That would be a steep 37 percent drop even from 2015, when 49 death sentences marked a 40-year low.

Executions declined to 20 this year, the lowest number since 1991 and well below the 1999 peak of 98 executions, stoking hopes for opponents of the death penalty.

The 2016 executions would be the fewest since 1972, when the US Supreme Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional. It reinstated the death penalty four years later.

Public opinion polls measured support for capital punishment at a four-decade low this year, the report said.

Still, the possibility that the Supreme Court will once again outlaw the death penalty faded after Republican Donald Trump was elected president last month.

Trump, who takes office on January 20, is expected to fill the vacant seat on the nine-seat Supreme Court with a conservative judge, tipping the court to a conservative majority.

'Just five states'

Notably "just five states" of the 31 where the death penalty is legal have executed a prisoner this year, the report said.

Georgia led with nine executions, followed by Texas with seven, Alabama with two, and Florida and Missouri with one each.

For the first time in more than 40 years, no state reached 10 executions. And it was 1983 when such a small number of states carried out executions.

From 2015 to 2016, the number of executions dropped 29 percent due to a confluence of factors, including a shortage of the drugs used in executions and prolonged appeals processes.

Still, the November 8 election showed continued divisions on public views on capital punishment.

In state referendums, voters in three states -- California, Nebraska and Oklahoma -- approved measures to keep capital punishment.

But over the course of the year, abolitionists scored court victories, such as in Florida and Delaware, where death penalty statutes were declared unconstitutional.

And, in several states, Americans elected governors, judges and prosecutors known more for their defense of human rights than their support for the death penalty.

"This year's events signal a continuation of the United States's movement away from the death penalty," the DPIC report concluded.

"As the public grows increasingly skeptical of capital punishment and courts strike down outlier practices that have inflated the numbers of executions and death sentences, the death penalty's failures become ever more evident."

In this context, 2017 promises to bring highly charged issues to the fore, including questions over what constitutes the humane execution of prisoners.

At least two states, Ohio and Virginia, are planning to carry out death sentences by using midazolam, a drug that acts as a sedative but is not an anesthetic.

"In executions, midazolam is intended to put the prisoner under anesthesia, which it's not an appropriate drug to do," Megan McCracken, a leading lethal injection expert at Berkeley Law School, told AFP.

"We have seen in several executions that prisoners who are given midazolam subsequently either remain conscious or regain consciousness and struggle, gasp, and show signs of pain and suffering," she said.

A Manila crime scene where two alleged drug dealers were gunned down by

unidentified men in October

Related Article:

Duterte executions plan is barbaric: Philippine critics

US Supreme Court spares Alabama man from execution

A US man awaiting execution in Alabama has had his life spared a seventh time following a last-minute stay ordered by the US Supreme Court. The 74-year-old was convicted in the 1982 slaying of his girlfriend's husband.

Deutsche Welle, 4 November 2016

The US Supreme Court ordered a last-minute stay of execution Thursday as Alabama state officials were preparing to put Thomas Douglas Arthur to death by lethal injection. Arthur - who maintains his innocence - has been on death row for more than three decades after being convicted of shooting to death Troy Wicker as he slept in his home in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, court records showed. Prosecutors said Arthur's girlfriend, Judy Wicker, paid him $10,000 to kill her husband.

The Supreme Court's order did not state a reason for the stay of execution but had earlier ordered the state of Alabama and other states to review a controversial law that gives judges - rather than juries - the power to impose the death penalty.

Arthur's defense lawyers had challenged the constitutionality of Alabama's lethal injection method of execution on the grounds that it is cruel and unusual punishment. In their challenge, his lawyers claimed that midazolam, the first drug that is used in executions causes "excruciatingly painful and agonizing effects."

International drug companies - many under EU pressure - have stopped supplying drugs used in lethal injections and many states have improvised lethal cocktails that often lead to complications that prolong the condemned man's suffering.

Arthur's latest scheduled execution followed three trials and another man's confession to the crime. In all, Alabama had scheduled Arthur's execution six times before Thursday.

Arthur had two convictions overturned on constitutional grounds, including improper introduction of evidence about a prior murder conviction. After his third conviction in 1991, he asked the jury to sentence him to death. Arthur's former girlfriend, Judy Wicker told police a black man raped her, knocked her unconscious and shot her husband at their home.

In court, prosecutors had claimed that Arthur, who is white, disguised himself as a black man. At her trial, Judy Wicker denied Arthur was the killer but later changed her testimony during his trial, Arthur's lawyers said. She was convicted of murder and paroled after 10 years in prison, according to the Alabama Department of Corrections. Limited crime scene testing found no DNA link to Gilbert or Arthur. Alabama lost a rape kit that might have cleared Arthur, his lawyers said.

jar/sms (Reuters, AP)

Death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rocks US political scene

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has sent shock waves through the US political establishment. Both parties are now gearing up for a confirmation battle in the Senate in an acrimonious election year.

Deutsche Welle, 14 February 2016

  

President Barack Obama has made clear that he intends to nominate a Supreme Court successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep at the age of 79 on Saturday.

But it remains to be seen whether any nominee can win confirmation in the Senate, where conservative Republicans hold a 54-46 majority.

Without Scalia the court loses its arch conservative, with the Republican-leaning judges losing their 5-4 advantage. An Obama appointee would likely give the court a liberal majority, which would impact all cases involving social issues, such as abortion rights and discrimination, as well as consitutional issues, such as gun control and health care.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia

After Obama praised Scalia as "one of the towering legal figures of our time," he nonetheless vowed to fulfill his constitutional responsibility to name a successor and called on the Senate to do the same.

"I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote," he said. "These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They are bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy."

Republicans vow to block

But the Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, wasted no time brushing aside the president's plans.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice," McConnell said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

President Barack Obama

But Obama has a folder full of potential nominees and is expected to act swiftly. What is unclear is the path he will take. He could nominate a demonstrably liberal candidate or go with a more moderate one.

The more liberal candidate is sure to be rejected by the Senate, but could be used as grist for the Democrats to inflame their base as they seek to hold on to the White House and win back the chamber.

To some extent, though, the same could be said for Republicans as they fight to hold on to their majority.

Obama's options

A more moderate left-of-center candidate could possibly win confirmation if Obama can peel off four Republican senators, which is possible.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell

This year's Senate election is a difficult one for Republicans. They have 24 seats to defend, including six in battleground states that Obama won twice.

Those senators could be at risk of losing re-election if they rejected a moderate Supreme Court nominee.

Scalia's death occurred just hours before the latest Republican presidential debate, where there was virtual unanimity on what the Senate needed to do. Donald Trump, the former reality TV show host and current conservative frontrunner, summed it up succinctly.

"It's up to Mitch McConnell and everyone else to stop it," Trump said. "It's called delay, delay, delay."

Flag outside the Supreme Court lowered to half-staff following the death of Justice Scalia https://t.co/i346KTh3ed pic.twitter.com/HbjHdMgRBl

— AFP news agency (@AFP) February 14, 2016

Related Articles:

Obama urges Republicans to rise above partisanship, consider court nominee
Key cases before US Supreme Court