If you think the planned 250-foot Arc de Trump will be a disaster, RAS has discovered that the small model of it that enjoys pride of place at the so-called Great American State Fair is a bad omen: ~~~
~~~ Tom Boggioni of the Raw Story: "The vinyl covering, stapled over a wood frame and emblazoned with 'One Nation Under God,' had begun 'buckling' under the combined assault of high temperatures, humidity, and rain." There are now hazard cones placed to keep people from walking under the arch & being hit by falling debris.
Annie Karni of the New York Times: “Representative Thomas H. Kean Jr., the New Jersey Republican who disappeared from Congress and the campaign trail in March with almost no explanation, said Tuesday that his lengthy hospitalization had been to treat depression.... [Speaking on the House floor in a formal session in which speeches are limited to five minutes] allowed Mr. Kean to say only what he wanted to about his long absence, avoiding the questions that journalists — and many of his own colleagues — wanted to ask. Earlier in the day, he had been silent in the hallways of the Capitol as reporters asked him where he had been, why he had not been more transparent about his health condition and whether he was still fit to serve.... Speaker Mike Johnson indicated that he had urged Mr. Kean to share more about his condition earlier.... 'If it were me, I would have been more specific about that,' he said, noting that Mr. Kean’s condition was very common.” ~~~
~~~ Marie: I do want to congratulate Kean for being one of the few people who could cause me to say, "I agree with Mike Johnson on that." The shame is on Kean, not for being ill, but for using his public position to stigmatize a common illness and perhaps cause some people not to seek needed treatment. He had a duty to his constituents to tell them what was going on and to the public in general to be as open about his illness as he probably would have been about a broken leg.
Marie: I read last week that experts have complained that the Arc de Trump
Abbie VanSickle & Adam Liptak of the New York Times: “The Supreme Court lifted limits on Tuesday on how much political parties can spend on advertising and other expenses in coordination with candidates. The 6-to-3 decision, divided along ideological lines, is a major victory for Republicans and could undercut one of the Democrats’ financial advantages going into the midterms. The question before the justices was whether current federal limits on such spending — called coordinated party expenditures — violate the First Amendment. During oral arguments, Noel J. Francisco, a lawyer for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which brought the legal challenge, told the justices that such limits were “at war” with previous decisions by the court that have found that restricting how money can be spent in politics amounts to limiting speech. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, agreed that the court’s campaign finance precedents required it to strike down a law that had established those limits and to overrule a 2001 decision that had upheld the limits.” The link is a gift link. Politico's report is here.
Mark Sherman of the AP: “The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting ... Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, and more recent federal laws in ruling that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen. The Republican president’s restrictions had been blocked by several lower courts and had not taken effect anywhere in the U.S.... By a 6-3 vote, the court struck down Trump’s order. A bare majority of five justices, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, makes a citizen of anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions[.] A sixth justice, Brett Kavanaugh, disagreed about the constitutional ruling, but pointed to a federal law that he said broadly conveys birthright citizenship. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have upheld Trump’s proposed restrictions.” Includes Document Cloud copy of the opinions. Politico's report, by John Gerstein, is here. MB: Both of these reports have been expanded since they were first published just before 10:50 am ET.
Bianca Quilantan & Josh Gerstein of Politico: “The Supreme Court has upheld state laws prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports, dealing a major blow to anti-discrimination protections for trans students. In a 6-3 ruling Tuesday, the justices upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban trans athletes from women’s sports, saying federal law allows schools to divide women’s and men’s sports teams by biological sex. The high court’s majority also rejected claims that such measures violate the constitutional rights of transgender people.” The AP's report is here.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~ Sarah Rumpf of Mediaite: “... Donald Trump announced a shiny new 'Golden Gift' for the White House Monday evening — a giant golden eagle sculpture that swiftly drew online mockery.... Monday evening, Trump shared a photo on his Truth Social account of what he said was 'A Golden Gift to the White House for its 250th Birthday Year!'... It should perhaps be noted that this July 4th will not be the White House’s 250th birthday, but the country’s. The White House is 225 years old.... It is not known what person, company, or organization was behind the 'Golden Gift.' It is also not yet known if the sculpture has even been finished or even created. Several posts said the image was mostly or completely AI-generated. D.C.-based freelance photographer Andrew Leyden posted several photos of the balcony showing there was no golden eagle sculpture mounted there.”
Shawn McCreesh of the New York Times: Donald “Trump continued to hem and haw on Monday about whether he would sign a popular piece of bipartisan legislation intended to lower housing costs for Americans nationwide. 'It’s a yawn,' Mr. Trump said of the bill that lawmakers in his party are desperate for him to pass on the eve of a tough midterm election. Mr. Trump has been openly sabotaging the housing bill since Wednesday, when he abruptly pulled out of a much-anticipated signing ceremony that was set up for him on Capitol Hill. The president threw down an ultimatum instead: He would sign the bill only if Congress would first pass another bill, the SAVE America Act, which would impose stricter voter ID rules that would make it harder to vote. The day after Mr. Trump pulled his own rug out from under himself at the signing ceremony, Speaker Mike Johnson said he still planned to send the housing bill to the president to sign.... “I think it’s so unimportant,” Trump said [to reporters in the Oval Office yesterday].... 'It’s a yawn' follows such observations as 'I don’t care about the midterms,' 'I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation' and 'I love the inflation.'” Politico's story is here.~~~
~~~ Marie: Trump told reporters yesterday that 'To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.' The reason the SAVE America Act is the only piece of legislation that interests Trump is because it is designed to help Republicans win the midterms and therefore keep him from being investigated by pesky Democrats if they gain control of either house of Congress. Bills designed to help ordinary Americans are borrr-ing. Story on the House's latest maneuver on the SAVE America voter suppression act linked below.
 |
| Marie: Why does Trump so often make this gesture? Does anyone have a theory? I think it's odd. |
Lauren Gurley of the Washington Post: “... Donald Trump on Monday announced that he would nominate acting labor secretary Keith Sonderling, a business community ally, to lead the agency after months of turmoil under its previous leader.... A labor policy veteran, Sonderling served as a top Labor official during Trump’s first term before his appointment to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Business leaders who lobbied for Sonderling said that he had been effectively directing policy and personnel decisions since last year while former [Labor Secretary Lori] Chavez-DeRemer spent much of her tenure as secretary on a 50-state tour.” MB: So not even a pretense of caring about, you know, laborers.
New York Post Editors Shocked, Shocked to Learn Trump & Lutnick Scions Are Profiting from Dads' Corrupt Deals. David Gilmour of Mediaite: “The New York Post’s editorial board declared the Trump brothers’ reported ties to a multibillion-dollar Kazakhstan mining venture as the 'shame of the nation' on Tuesday, comparing the deal to the kind of 'influence-peddling' scandal Republicans spent years attacking Hunter Biden over. In the scathing editorial, the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper opened: 'It was bad when the Bidens did it, and it’s just as bad when the Trumps do it,' arguing that the allegations surrounding Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the family of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick amount to 'Hunter Biden-style sleaze.' The broadside follows a bombshell weekend investigation by The New York Times detailing how the Trump brothers became financially connected to a U.S.-backed tungsten mining project in Kazakhstan while the Trump administration was helping secure the deal and advancing up to $1.6 billion in potential federal financing.”
~~~ The Post editorial is here. Marie: It's hilarious how the editors go out of their way to try to absolve Donald Trump & Howard Lutnick for responsibility in this family grift enterprise. They express surprise that "The prez himself actually called into a meeting between Howard Lutnick and Kazakhstan’s president as the deal was being finalized," and they testify that "[Howard] Lutnick himself has stepped away from [Cantor Fitzgerald, which is underwriting the deal]." They urge Donald Trump to "get ahead of the growing scandal." Oh, please.
Maxine Joselow of the New York Times: “The Trump administration on Monday said it would pay Duke Energy $129 million to abandon its plans to build an offshore wind farm off North Carolina. It was the fourth such deal struck by the administration to throttle the development of offshore wind power, a source of renewable energy that President Trump has disparaged for decades. Under the agreement, Duke Energy would surrender its lease in federal waters for a wind farm that was planned in the Carolina Long Bay area, roughly 15 to 22 miles off southeastern North Carolina. The project was in the early stages of development and construction had not yet begun. The government plans to reimburse Duke Energy $129 million, slightly less than the amount that the utility paid for the lease under the Biden administration. Duke Energy would then reinvest that money in other sources of energy favored by the Trump administration, which could include new nuclear and natural gas projects, according to the utility company.” (Also linked yesterday.)
Wherein a bigmouth finds out that saying the quiet part out loud is not a good idea. (Many a bigmouth would learn from such an experience and exercise a bit of self-control going forward, but Trump is not easily educated and he has the self-control of a spoiled two-year-old.) ~~~
~~~ Patrick McGeehan of the New York Times: “A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to permanently abandon its efforts to suspend funding for a $16 billion rail tunnel under the Hudson River, describing those attempts as 'flagrantly' illegal. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York said that the administration violated federal guidelines when it stopped reimbursing the tunnel’s builders for their expenses in September. The suspension forced a shutdown of the construction project and led to a brief layoff of about 1,000 workers in New York City and New Jersey in February. Federal officials said that the payments were stopped while the project’s hiring practices were reviewed. But Judge Vargas noted that ... [Donald] Trump had indicated in interviews that there were political reasons for stopping the tunnel project, which was a favorite of Senator Chuck Schumer.... 'We’re cutting a $20 billion project that Schumer fought for 15 years to get, and I’m cutting the project,' the judge quoted Mr. Trump as saying in October. 'The project is gonna be dead. It’s just pretty much dead right now.'”
The New York Times is liveblogging developments in the Iran War. From the pinned item at 5:00 am ET: “Iran and the United States have offered conflicting narratives about whether the delegations they plan to have in Qatar on Tuesday will hold direct talks, days after an exchange of hostilities threatened a tenuous cease-fire deal.... [Donald] Trump said in a brief social media post on Monday that U.S. and Iranian officials would hold talks in Qatar the next day, at Tehran’s request. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, later told Fox News that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, two of Mr. Trump’s closest advisers, would fly to Doha this week for the sessions. Hours after the president’s post, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said that a delegation from the country would be in Doha over the next two days — but he denied that they would meet directly with U.S. officials. Mr. Gharibabadi said in remarks carried by state television that the Iranian delegation would instead meet with Qatari mediators to make sure the U.S. abides by its commitments under the temporary deal.” ~~~
~~~ Not long ago, we learned that Marco Rubio & Steve Witkoff finally were planning to read in members of Congress on the progress of their negotiations with Iran. The read-in, it turns out, was made in the form of an unclassified conference call in which Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) asked some questions that annoyed "diplomat" Witkoff, Dean said on MS NOW, last night. At that, she said, “He cut my mic off and ... called my question 'smartassed' and 'stupid,' cut my mic off and said, 'There’s your answer.'”
Meredith Hill & Connor O'Brien of Politico: “The House Rules Committee ... approved on party lines a measure to set up Republicans’ $1.1 trillion defense policy bill, a government funding bill and other GOP bills for floor debate. It would then combine the Pentagon bill, once passed, with the contentious elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act and send it to the Senate as one piece of legislation. That maneuver, telegraphed by Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Monday, is aimed at appeasing House GOP hard-liners who have blockaded the floor, demanding the Senate pass the elections bill that has languished there for months.... Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Democrat, called the merger move 'a big waste of time.'”
Annie Karni of the New York Times: “The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed allegations that Senator Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona, engaged in sexual misconduct and violated campaign finance laws, after an investigation prompted by a complaint from a Republican congresswoman. In a private letter dated June 26, which Mr. Gallego blasted out in a news release on Monday, the bipartisan ethics panel wrote that it 'did not find evidence that your actions violated federal law, Senate rules or related standards of conduct.'... Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida, first made accusations against Mr. Gallego ... in an April interview with CBS News.... She claimed she knew of a woman who was going to come forward and publicly disclose a sexual incident involving Mr. Gallego.... Mr. Gallego vehemently denied the charge and proactively reached out to the Senate Ethics Committee and offered to cooperate with an investigation.... [Ms. Luna] opaquely warned of more allegations to come, saying Mr. Gallego should '... keep raising for your legal defense fund. Once a creep always a creep, and you’re gonna need it.'” ~~~
~~~ Oh Wait. Now Trump's DOJ Is on the Case. Marc Caputo & Kate Santaliz of Axios: "Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) is under federal investigation for suspected campaign finance violations.... The investigation — which Gallego's team cast as a partisan attack by a weaponized Justice Department — could cast a shadow over the freshman senator's political future as he eyes a potential 2028 run for president.... The DOJ investigation stems from a 'whistleblower complaint' out of Southern California, according to a source familiar with the probe. Gallego used a political committee's PAC to fund excursions to Miami, Chicago, Disneyland and Disney World with his family, Politico first reported."
Annie Karni of the New York Times: “Representative Tom Kean Jr., the New Jersey Republican who disappeared from Congress and the campaign trail in March with almost no explanation, is set to return to the Capitol on Tuesday and address the mysterious health condition he says has kept him away. Mr. Kean, a 57-year-old seeking a third term in a competitive district, has missed more than 100 votes since he was last seen in public more than 100 days ago. His re-emergence will be closely watched after months during which he and his staff refused to disclose anything about where he was or what was keeping him away. Their silence has built Tuesday’s return into a major reveal after a prolonged cliffhanger. Even last week, when a reporter for The New York Times found Mr. Kean at his home in Westfield dressed in a suit and tie around 8:45 p.m., he declined to offer any explanation, saying: 'I’ll talk to you next week.'” ~~~
~~~ Marie: RAS wrote last week: "Standing in front of his open window in his suit and his conservative red tie on while his wife smiles from behind him. I'm surprised his wife wasn't described as wearing an apron and holding a streaming pie or casserole dish while vacantly smiling from behind. It sounds like the beginnings of some horror movie about pod people or a brainwashed couple or maybe clones infiltrating the country. 'I'll talk to you next week' he said to his neighbor in a monotone voice, the life never reaching his eyes. lol"
Supreme Rule
Mark Sherman of the AP: “The Supreme Court on Monday dramatically expanded presidential power, upholding ... Donald Trump’s firings of the heads of independent federal agencies with one important exception, the Federal Reserve. The justices allowed Fed governor Lisa Cook to stay in her job while she fights the Republican president’s effort to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied. But other than at the nation’s central bank, with its role of setting interest rates, the court held that presidents have free rein to fire agency heads at will, despite federal laws that require a cause for such dismissals and a 91-year-old decision that had limited executive authority. With the six conservative justices in the majority, the nine-member court jettisoned its unanimous decision in Humphrey’s Executor that had limited when presidents can fire agencies’ board members — in part to try to ensure decision-making free of political influence.” Politico's report is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog provides a good explanation of the Court's decision. ~~~
~~~ Marie: Many things anger Donald Trump, but nothing more than not being able to control a Black woman: ~~~
~~~ Colby Smith & Tony Romm of the New York Times: Donald “Trump renewed his intention to try and fire Lisa D. Cook from the Federal Reserve on Monday, saying he would look for a way to oust her after the Supreme Court blocked his previous attempt to fire a sitting governor at the central bank. In a social media post, Mr. Trump described the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision as 'procedural,' adding that he would 'take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!' Mr. Trump took the extraordinary step of trying to fire Ms. Cook from the Fed last year, claiming that she had misrepresented her finances in order to obtain more favorable mortgage terms. Ms. Cook has not been charged with a crime, and has denied any wrongdoing. She challenged her firing in court, as her lawyers sought to argue that the attempted dismissal fit a pattern by Mr. Trump, who has sought to pressure the Fed into lowering interest rates. In late September, a federal judge allowed Ms. Cook to continue serving in the role as she contested the legality of the firing, prompting the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.” (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ New York Times Editors: The Supreme Court's “decision Monday allowing ... [Donald] Trump to fire F.T.C. commissioners represents a break with ... history. The ruling dismisses longstanding precedent and effectively discards a 112-year-old law that said the president could fire commissioners only for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.'... Because the Federal Trade Commission exercises executive power, it 'must therefore be controlled by the chief executive,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote.'... Perhaps the clearest sign of the ruling’s weakness is that the six justices in the majority — the six appointed by Republican presidents — do not even have the courage of their misguided convictions. In another ruling Monday, the court rejected [Mr.] Trump’s bid to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board....
“But why is the statute Congress enacted to protect the Fed from political interference worth upholding but not the law that established the F.T.C.? Justice Amy Coney Barrett, dissenting in the Cook case, pointed out that the two holdings are in “serious tension” with each other.... In truth, the main distinction is that many Republicans care more about a well-functioning Fed than about any other agency. Other agencies often regulate businesses and individuals in ways that free-market conservatives oppose.... The six Republican-appointed justices ... are inconsistent in their defense of the Constitution.... Most worrisome, the Supreme Court is bestowing new powers on a president who often behaves as an aspiring autocrat, defying bipartisan tradition and even the law in the pursuit of personal authority.” ~~~
Courtenay Brown & Andrew Pantazi of Axios: "The Supreme Court this term gave ... [Donald] Trump powers over the federal government that no modern president has held. But it blocked his administration on two of the biggest issues for markets: the Fed and tariffs." MB: The writers don't make much of an effort to explain why the Court would restrain Trump in only this one regard. But some while back, if I recall correctly, Akhilleus reckoned the justices' "reasoning" had something to do with their reluctance to let Trump screw up their investment portfolios. That makes sense to me.
~~~⭐Paul Krugman: "... the Supreme Court declared war on U.S. democracy. It also declared war, basically, on modern society, on everything it takes to function in the 21st century. And I’m not sure that people understand that yet.... Not only does this give essentially dictatorial powers to the occupant of the White House, but it also makes it extremely difficult for the economy to function. It makes it extremely difficult for society to function.... Do you want to invest in something where you have absolutely no idea what the ground rules will be, whether it will be approved or not? Do you want to invest in a whole business line when, for all you know, the White House will abruptly decide that your product isn’t safe and that a competitor’s product is, based on spurious grounds? And what would cause those decisions to happen? Well, how about the fact that some businesses are better at the business of bribing the president and his family than others. And if you think that this is outlandish — you know, a few years ago you might have said this was outlandish, things like that wouldn’t really happen — well, as we speak, these things are happening all the time....
"As everybody knows, this Supreme Court is not actually empowering the presidency. It is empowering this president. And as soon as there’s a Democrat in the White House, suddenly there will be all kinds of restrictions on what that person can do.... This has been the clearest signal yet that we have six people (there are three who are not part of it, but we have six people) who are fundamentally hostile to democracy, fundamentally hostile to the modern world and determined to put the catastrophically bad leader that we currently have sitting in the White House in charge of everything, which is a nightmare scenario on every level." See also Akhilleus' commentary in yesterday's thread.
~~~ Marie: People like John Roberts & Sam Alito have always been hostile to democracy. They might not admit it aloud, but they likely whisper it among themselves. They are better-educated than the average American; some come from more privileged backgrounds; some take pride in their mastery of their own bootstraps. All are unbearably full of themselves. They are the entitled people. They believe that whatever combination of talent, cunning & luck have put them in positions of power gives them the right to rule the great unwashed. ~~~
~~~ Heather Cox Richardson has a good round-up of opinions on the FTC Slaughter decision -- including Trump's! MB: Based on the analyses she presents, it's obvious the decision will make all Americans more unsafe, particularly during Republican administrations because Republicans eschew regulations, especially ones that inconvenience their corporate donors.
Abbie VanSickle of the New York Times: “The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Mississippi’s grace period for late-arriving mail-in ballots, rejecting a push by the Trump administration to invalidate a state law. The ruling means Mississippi’s law, which allows elections officials to count ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to five business days later, will remain in place, at least through the midterm elections. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberals in supporting the state law. The decision is a blow to efforts by Republicans and Mr. Trump to roll back mail-in balloting, and will also leave in place similar laws in at least 18 other states and territories, including 2026 battleground districts in Nevada and California. It is also a defeat for [Mr.] Trump, who has long criticized voting by mail, falsely claiming that the practice is open to fraud and helped lead to his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.” Politico's report is here. (Also linked yesterday.)~~~
~~~ Marc Elias of Democracy Docket: “The RNC tried to throw out your ballot. I fought back and won. The Republican National Committee ... spent millions building a case in an attempt to use disenfranchisement as a systematic tool to gain partisan advantage.... In a healthy democracy, we would agree that no citizen should be disenfranchised because the U.S. Postal Service took too long to deliver their ballot to the election office. Yet we do not live in a healthy democracy.... The pool of so-called 'late-received' ballots skews disproportionately young, minority and Democratic.... We won the battle, but the war over mail-in voting will continue. The GOP’s goal is to require nearly everyone to vote in person on Election Day — banning no-excuse mail-in voting, all forms of early voting, and so-called 'cure periods' that allow voters to fix technical errors in their mail-in ballots. Those fights will likely take on new urgency in the wake of this decision.” ~~~
~~~ James Downie: "Alito's argument – that counting ballots after Election Day means 'the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated' – is some of the dumbest reasoning I have ever seen. The 'choice' doesn't occur at the time of counting!" MB: Alito isn't even trying. He's just registering his solidarity with the Dear Leader, which does not require a logical, honest argument. Thanks to RAS for the link. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Lindsay Whitehurst of the AP: “The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider a Republican push to enforce strict Arizona voting laws passed in the swing state after the 2020 election. The high court has allowed some similar rules to take effect temporarily before, including Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for state and local elections and a Virginia purge of voter rolls that the state said was aimed at keeping noncitizens from voting.... Donald Trump’s Republican administration joined the appeal after lower courts found the measures violated federal voting laws. The high court is expected to hear arguments in the fall and hand down an opinion after the midterm elections.” (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~ Rick Hasen in Slate: "The Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision in Monday’s Watson v. RNC case was a small victory for voters in recognizing that states have the right to accept ballots that are cast by voters, including military voters, by Election Day but that arrive in election offices a few days later. But that same states-rights principle may come back to bite voters in a far more significant case out of Arizona that the court agreed on Monday to hear next term. At issue in Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota is whether Arizona can reject voter registration applications from eligible people who fail to provide proof of citizenship like a birth certificate or naturalization papers. A decision in favor of Arizona’s mini SAVE Act could disenfranchise literally millions of voters for the 2028 elections." The link is a gift link Hasen provided in his Election Law blog. ~~~
~~~ A number of experts, including Ari Berman of Mother Jones, here, see Watson as one small victory for voting rights, but "The surprise victory is unlikely to slow down the administration’s assault on voting rights." MB: As you can see from other stories linked just today, Trump and probably a majority of Congressional Republicans are pushing to pass the SAVE America Act, legislation designed to suppress votes, particularly of people more likely to vote Democratic, like women and poor people.
Ann Marimow & Adam Liptak of the New York Times: “When police officers sweep up location data from cellphone users near crimes scenes, they must comply with the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a modest victory for privacy rights in the digital age. Such so-called geofence searches have become a popular tool for law enforcement, but critics say they put at risk the personal data of everyday Americans and violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizure. 'An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cellphone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information — even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for five justices in the 6-to-3 decision.
“But her opinion went no further, and it returned the case to a lower court to decide whether the search at issue in the case, which took place after a Richmond, Va., bank robbery, had violated the Constitution. 'It is therefore now up to the court of appeals,' she wrote, 'to decide whether, at each step of the search process, the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause.'” Politico's report is here. (Also linked yesterday.)
Abbie VanSickle of the New York Times: “The Supreme Court on Monday declined a request by ... [Donald] Trump to review a $5 million civil judgment against him after a jury found in 2023 that he sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll. The announcement by the justices did not include any reasoning, and no public dissents were noted. A second case that arose out of Ms. Carroll’s allegations also could be headed to the Supreme Court. In January 2024, a separate jury ordered Mr. Trump to pay Ms. Carroll $83.3 million in damages for defaming her in 2019 after she accused him of a decades-old rape. Lawyers for Mr. Trump have said they plan to ask that the justices also hear that case.” Politico's report is here. The AP's report is here. (Also linked yesterday.)
Lindsay Whitehurst of the AP: “The Supreme Court refused Monday to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed against CNN over its coverage of a prominent attorney’s remarks made while defending ... Donald Trump during his 2020 impeachment. The majority declined to take up the case in a brief, unexplained order. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, calling on the court to reconsider the legal standards for public figures who claim defamation. Alan Dershowitz said the news network aired only a portion of the comment made during his defense of the president, distorting his meaning to make him look like he’d 'lost his mind,' according to court documents. The network said that multiple outlets had interpreted his remarks in a similar way, and Dershowitz couldn’t show CNN was trying to mischaracterize what he said.” An NBC News report is here. (Also linked yesterday.)
Abbie VanSickle of the New York Times: “The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an emergency request by Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court justice who lost a Senate race in 2017 after he was accused of sexual misconduct, blocking Mr. Moore from collecting an $8.2 million defamation verdict over a campaign ad run against him in that race. The decision kept in place a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which in April erased a jury’s verdict that Mr. Moore had been defamed by a Democratic group’s television ad. Mr. Moore’s request was denied by Justice Clarence Thomas, who is assigned to handle emergency applications from that region of the country.... This is likely not the last time the Supreme Court will deal with Mr. Moore’s issue. His lawyers said Mr. Moore also planned to ask the Supreme Court to rule more permanently on the merits of his case but that they had asked for more immediate temporary emergency relief as well.” (Also linked yesterday.)
Michael Forsythe of the New York Times: “Guo Wengui, a Chinese businessman who transformed himself from a Beijing insider into an anti-Communist crusader and ally of the American far right, was sentenced to 30 years in prison on Monday for defrauding investors, including many of his own fervent supporters, of hundreds of millions of dollars.... After settling in Manhattan in 2015, Mr. Guo moved quickly to build a political network in America akin to the one he had left in China. By 2017, he was a member of Mar-a-Lago.... Before his arrest, Mr. Guo built political and business connections with some powerful people in President Trump’s orbit. Among them was Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump aide, who had a $1 million consulting contract to advise Mr. Guo and his media company.... It was on his media network that material from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the soon-to-be president’s son, first appeared. ” Peter Navarro was another Guo associate.
The New York Times has U.S. maps here tracking the dangerous heat wave over the next several days. The link is a gift link.
~~~~~~~~~~
Alaska Senate Race. A Tale of Two Dans, Chapter 5 or So. Kellen Browning of the New York Times: “The double Dan Sullivan drama appears to have finally come to an end. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Dan J. Sullivan could appear on the ballot this year, seemingly bringing to a close a bizarre political saga hanging over the race for Senate in Alaska, a potentially consequential battleground as Democrats fight to regain control of Congress. The court’s decision appeared to be good news for Democrats. Republicans fear that their party’s incumbent, Senator Dan S. Sullivan, could be imperiled by the presence of Dan J. Sullivan on the ballot, arguing that voters could be confused and cast their ballot for the wrong Sullivan. They accused Democrats and former Representative Mary Peltola, who is vying to oust the incumbent senator, of being behind Dan. J[.] Sullivan’s campaign and orchestrating an underhanded scheme to trick voters. Ms. Peltola and state Democrats have denied the allegations, and Dan J. Sullivan ... insisted he was making a legitimate effort to unseat the other Sullivan.” Politico's report is here.
Colorado Redistricting. Nick Corasaniti of the New York Times: “The Colorado Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to Democratic hopes to redraw the state’s congressional maps ahead of the 2028 election, finding that the twin ballot initiatives they had sought in order to redistrict in an off year had violated the state constitution.” Politico's story is here.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ukraine/Russia. John Yoon of the New York Times: “Moscow came under a major drone attack overnight, the city’s mayor said Tuesday, less than two weeks after Ukraine launched a large-scale drone assault on the Russian capital. Mayor Sergei Sobyanin reported several waves of drones, starting Monday night. He said on Telegram that Russian air defenses had shot down more than 60 drones, and that emergency services were working at crash sites. He did not mention any injuries. Mr. Sobyanin did not say where the drones had come from, and there was no immediate public comment from the authorities in Ukraine.”
Venezuela. “The First Responders Were Ordinary Venezuelans.” Helena Carpio of the Washington Post: “The 7.2-magnitude and 7.5-magnitude earthquakes struck some 100 miles west of Caracas within a minute of each other around dinnertime Wednesday, toppling concrete buildings, igniting fires and burying thousands of people alive. Interim president Delcy Rodríguez went on television to declare a state of emergency, urge unity and thank the Trump administration for its support. But on the ground, people say they’ve received little help. Years of mismanagement by the authoritarian socialist government, exacerbated by U.S. sanctions, have left the government ill-equipped to respond to the emergency. The United States and other countries have sent search teams, rescue equipment and other aid, but the response has been insufficient.... Now, in their moment of direst need, ordinary people would lead the rescue and recovery themselves, with a generosity that defied a decade of deprivation.... Venezuelans at home and abroad rallied on social media to gather data faster than any government institution.” A major problem was that these ordinary people, besides lacking expertise, did not have the tools & equipment necessary to conduct rescue operations. ~~~
~~~ U.S. Deportees Are Missing. Gisela Salomon of the AP: “More than 100 people just deported from the United States were being held in a hotel when earthquakes struck Venezuela, setting off a scramble to find survivors and bodies buried in the rubble, according to survivors. A deportation flight from Miami arrived in Venezuela hours before Wednesday’s earthquakes. On board were 146 Venezuelans, including 19 women and seven children, according to ICE Flight Monitor, an initiative of Human Rights First, which tracks deportation flights. They were transported to a hotel in La Guaira.”
