The Supreme Court and January 6

By tmess2 | Published April 14, 2024

Monday marks the start of the two-week “April” argument session at the Supreme Court — traditionally, the last argument session of the term.  After next week, the Supreme Court will spend the next two months finishing up the opinions.  (As of today, we have 14 opinions in the 51 cases heard in the first six argument sessions of the term.  As we get later in the term and have more opinions issued, there will be posts about which justice might have each case.  For now, there are not enough opinions issued to support any attempt to read the tea leaves.)

This session features two crucial cases related to January 6.  The first, being heard on April 16 involves the legal reach of the obstruction charge which has been filed against a significant number of defendants, including prisoner in the dock Donald J. Trump.  The second, being heard on April 25 (a special semi-expedited Thursday argument) involves whether Donald J. Trump has any immunity to the pending charges.

The April 16 argument comes in the case of Fischer vs. United States.  This appeal arises in the context of a motion to dismiss filed Mr. Fischer.  The essence of a motion to dismiss is a pre-trial claim that the conduct alleged by the government is not conduct covered by the offense charged.  The trial court agreed with Mr. Fischer, but the appellate court reversed. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Easter Convention Update

By Matt | Published March 31, 2024
  • The GOP is considering limiting NBC’s access to the GOP convention due to the Ronna McDaniel disaster
  • Illinois has a special organization just to plan parties and events for the delegation
  • And the battle over who gets to march, and when and where, during the Dem convention continues

Posted in 2024 Convention, Chicago | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Persuasion vs. Coercion

By tmess2 | Published March 24, 2024

Sometimes, the U.S. Supreme Court will schedule arguments to create a “theme” day.  In other words, the Court will schedule two cases which are technically unrelated but involve similar issues.  By hearing arguments in the two cases back-to-back, the Justices get two factually different pictures of conduct to point out some of the different ways that the issue might arise and, hopefully, can get some input through both cases on how a particular test for judging whether conduct crossed the line would play out.

This week, we had one of those theme days involving when governmental conduct indirectly infringes on the First Amendment.  The first case, Murthy, Surgeon General, vs. Missouri, arises from the efforts of the Surgeon General’s Office to talk with social media companies about posts containing medically harmful information related to COVID.  The nutty Attorney Generals from Louisiana and Missouri (which at that time was now Senator Eric Schmitt) filed a lawsuit in front of a handpicked judge in the Western District of Louisiana seeking an injunction barring all communications between federal officials and social media companies.  That “judge” granted that request.  The Fifth Circuit narrowed the injunction somewhat but left it substantially intact.   The other case, National Rifle Association vs. Vullo, involves a state financial services regulator trying to persuade regulated entities (banks and insurance companies) that they should stop doing business with the NRA.

What seems to be clear from the arguments in these two cases is that the Supreme Court is likely to make a distinction between persuasion and coercion.  In asking questions, several justices fell back on their own executive branch experience.  In traditional media, it is not unusual for reporters to call government officials asking for comments on a potential story.  In some cases, the story is one that, for a variety of reasons, the government official might prefer that the story not get published (or at least that certain details not run).  Sometimes those reasons are good reasons like in a murder investigation somebody might have leaked a key detail from the crime scene to a reporter which the police were intending to use as a “false confession check” (on the theory that only the killer would know that detail so any nut coming in to take credit for something they did not do would get that detail wrong).  But those reasons might not be strong enough for the government to seek a court order preventing publication.  So the government will try to convince the news media that it would be best if that information was not included in the story.  In making this request, the government might offer a “comp” like an exclusive interview with the police chief on some other topic.  It seems like, in the Murthy case, the Supreme Court is likely to slap the lower court and the state AGs hard for what is really a legally meritless argument.  There is really nothing here suggesting that these claims involve anything beyond routine attempts to persuade media to go with the official story.  And the First Amendment does not prohibit the government from trying to convince publishers to do the right thing. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Social Media and the Supreme Court — Round 1

By tmess2 | Published March 18, 2024

One of the downsides of the legal system is that the final say on how laws apply to new technologies tend to fall on a group of older lawyers.  In other words, most of the votes are in the hands of people who are not on the cutting edge of technology.  This year, there will be several cases before the Supreme Court involving social media.  To put things in perspective, the four youngest justices essentially went to law school either while I was going to law school or right after I went to law school.  At the time that I was in law school, most students did not have e-mail accounts, and we were using very early versions of Word and WordPerfect as our software for writing papers and exams.  Needless to say, sites like Facebook and X were not part of our law school and college experiences.

This past week, we got the first of the social media cases for the year — actually two separate cases raising the same issue — whether a public official can block individuals from commenting on the official’s social media webpages.  When faced with novel issues, judges tend to try to fall back on existing legal doctrines even if that means forcing round pegs into square holes.  And to a some extent that is what we got in the lead case — Lindke vs. Freed in an actual unanimous opinoin written by Justice Barrett.

The basic facts of this case is that the webpage in question was the personal account of the public official.  The official had this account before running for and winning his current position.  However, he does not his public position on the account similar to how many people not their employment.  And he does use his webpage to mention what is going on with that position.  The people on the other side of this case took advantage of the comment feature of the webpage to critique what the city government was doing.  The public official deleted some comments that he thought were inappropriate or inaccurate before eventually blocking these individuals from commenting.  The people who were blocked brought a case claiming that, by blocking them, this official was violating their First Amendment rights. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Primary Elections — Week of March 18

By tmess2 | Published March 17, 2024

With the presidential nominations effectively wrapped up, the focus of primary season shifts to Congress.  States face conflicting incentives in terms of primary scheduling.  First, for presidential primaries, an early primary increases the chance that a state will vote before the nomination is effectively decided.  But, especially a state with a part-time legislature that only meets in the Spring, a Summer primary allows the legislature to wrap up its business (with appropriate goodies for the districts of favored legislators facing a tough race) and gives the legislators time to spend back in their district campaigning.  Second, it saves money for a state to combine presidential primaries with the primaries for other offices.  Thus, only some of the states with early primaries for president also have the primaries for other offices on the same day.

This week, three states have primaries for “other” offices.  The first is actually a special election.  That election is to fill the seat created by Kevin McCarthy deciding that he did not want to return to just being a member of the House after he lost the vote of no confidence (technically motion to vacate the chair) last fall.  For regular elections, California uses a “top two” primary in which, regardless of the vote for the leading candidate, the second-placed candidate advances to the general election.  For special elections, if the leading candidate gets a majority, that candidate wins.  If not, there will be a runoff between the top two candidates.  Two weeks ago, there was the regular primary for the seat.  Given how long it takes California to process its ballot, the race for second place is still too close to call.  Given that most of the votes remaining appear to be from the county in which the current third-placed candidate finished ahead of the second-placed candidate, the primary may actually be recount close.  Right now, the “second” Republican is still in second place.  That should discourage Republicans from unifying behind the current leading candidate in the special election (as supporters of the Republican currently in second have hopes that their candidate will make the general election and do not want to make the leading candidate the incumber candidate).  As the leading candidate did not get a majority in the primary, there is a good chance that there will be a runoff in this race.  If the leading candidate (Kevin McCarthy’s handpicked candidate, Vince Fong) can get the majority, the Republicans get this seat back.  If not, it remains vacant until after the runoff in two months (probably keeping the seat vacant through June).  Needless to say, the Republicans in Washington are praying for an outright winner on Tuesday.

The next state on the list is Ohio.  In recent years, ticket splitting has declined, and it has become harder for a Congressional candidate to win a state/district that voted for the presidential candidate of the other party.  Currently, there are only senators (three Democrats and two Republicans) representing states won in 2020 by the other party.  The three Democrats are up for election this year.  Joe Manchin of West Virginia has decided that, despite his personal popularity in his state, the presidential margin is just too much to overcome.  That leaves Jon Tester of Montana and Sherrod Brown of Ohio to face their voters this year.  Given that Ohio has been getting redder in recent years, Republicans are hopeful that whomever they nominate might win the seat in November to give the Republicans a senate majority.  But with Republicans thinking that they can win, the primary attracted multiple candidates.  The race originally looked like a three-person race.  Objectively, if Republicans wanted somebody ready to be a senator, the obvious choice would be the current Secretary of State, Frank LaRose.  But serving in an executive position requires actually following the law.  And, while Secretary LaRose has definitely put his thumb on the scale as much as he can, those decisions disqualify him for “purists.”  Neither of the other two candidates would be a strong contender if the Republican primary was being held in the real world.  With Secretary LaRose struggling, the establishment has unified behind Matt Dolan.  What Mr. Dolan has going for him is that his family is wealthy, and he has been willing to spend enough of his own money to be competitive (both this cycle and two years ago when he put up a solid fight in the primary for the other seat).  The Trump candidate is Bernie Moreno.  As was the case back in 2022, for Democrats choosing to participate in the Republican primary, the question is whether to vote for the weaker candidate (Moreno) to increase the odds of winning in the general election or to vote for the sanest candidate (Dolan) just in case Brown loses in November.  The national party has run adds attacking Moreno as too extreme in the reverse psychology ploy to get Republicans to commit political suicide by nominating Moreno. Continue Reading...

Posted in House of Representatives, Primary Elections, Senate | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

St. Patrick’s Day Convention Update

By Matt | Published March 17, 2024

Here’s the latest news:

  • In a huge surprise, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be nominated for president and vice president in Chicago this summer.
  • NBC 5 Chicago reports on the three Black women leading preparations for the convention.
  • State delegation hotel assignments have been announced.
    • But no state is assigned to the non-union Trump International Hotel and Tower! However, Fox News can stay there if they want.
    • All delegation hotels are withing 5 miles of the convention venues, one of the reasons Chicago will remain an attractive host city for future conventions (assuming no repeat of 1968).
    Security funding of $75 million for each convention was approved in the latest budget agreement, increased from $50 million where it had been for a number of cycles. And security preparations continue:

Posted in 2024 Convention, Chicago | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Supreme Court’s Ballot Access “Decision”

By tmess2 | Published March 10, 2024

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0/5-4 decision in Anderson vs. Trump — the Section 3 case out of Colorado.  The majority opinion was a textbook example of the problem with originalism as the three opinions attempted to divine what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would have wanted a court looking at this issue to do.  The opinion was NOT a textualist opinion.  Instead, it was an ahistorical attempt to reason how the Congress that proposed (and the state legislatures that ratified) the amendment would have thought the rule would be for this type of case.

To understand the problem,  we first need to understand the “real” world of the 1860s.  Elections were run differently back then.  Today, every state uses a variation of the “Australian ballot.”  The essence of the Australian ballot is a pre-printed unmarked ballot containing all of the names of all of the candidates for all of the offices which the voter marks in the voting booth.  Prior to the adoption of the Australian ballot, depending on the state and location, votes were either public or involved a paper ballot.  In states with paper ballots, “party” newspapers (or the party itself) printed the party’s “ticket” — a ballot with all of the offices with only that party’s candidate for the office listed.  In other words, candidates did not file for office with the election authority prior to the election, and there was no official ballot.  Thus, even when the local party put forward an ineligible, there was no means to disqualify a candidate before that candidate won.

In this type of system, by necessity, any challenge to the eligibility of a candidate had to come after the election.  There were two ways to challenge the eligibility of candidate/office holder.  First, one of the other candidates could file an election challenge (assuming that state law permitted such a challenge).  While, in some states, this might have been a viable method  for challenging a local official, it works less well (even today) for those elected to state legislatures and federal positions.   In many states for the state legislature and for Congress, the final say on the validity of election results rests with the legislative body (either Congress or the respective state legislature).  As we saw back in 2008, even on an expedited basis, there is not enough time for an election dispute to go through the court process before the new term begins.  Not surprisingly, in the 1860s and 1870s, if a former Confederate were elected to Congress, Congress handled the matter by not seating the new member of Congress rather than state courts resolving the issue.  As there was never an ineligible person who received any electoral votes for president, there simply is no historical precedent for how Congress would have handled that issue. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Super Tuesday Convention Update

By Matt | Published March 5, 2024
  • Applications for a Summer Internship with the Chicago Host Committee are being accepted.
  • Sign up to volunteer at the convention here.
  • Here’s some surprising news: If you give a lot of money to the Democratic Convention, you’ll get a nice hotel room and great seats in the arena!
  • The CNN-Political Grill is coming to Milwaukee and Chicago this summer.
  • And Chicago security is preparing:

Posted in 2024 Convention, Chicago | Tagged | Leave a comment

Trump vs. United States — The Immunity Argument

By tmess2 | Published March 3, 2024

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments in the case of Trump v. United States, regarding Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for his role in the January 6 insurrection because his actions that day were official actions.  They also announced that arguments will be held this term — on April 22.  There is a lot to unpack in this order.

Let’s start with the procedural posture of this case.  Late last year, the trial judge (sitting in the federal district court for D.C.) denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based, in part, on his claim of absolute immunity for actions taken while President.  He then filed an “interlocutory” appeal of that ruling.  (In most cases, parties can only appeal when a case is over.  There are a limited number of circumstances in which a party can immediately appeal from a pre-trial ruling,)   The appellate court (the D.C. Circuit) expedited the appeal (even more so than is normal for interlocutory appeals).  Despite the D.C. Circuit expediting the case, the special prosecutor, In December, asked that the U.S. Supreme Court take the case without waiting for a ruling from the appellate court (something that is rarely done).    But, on December 22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied that request.

On February 6, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion affirming the trial court.  Normally, there would be a brief period of time before the “mandate” (the formal order implementing the opinion and restoring the authority to the trial court to proceed).  But the panel that issued the opinion set a quick deadline of February 12 for Trump to get a stay of the mandate from either the full D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.  As such, on February 12, Trump filed for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Now, in most cases, once the stay were granted, the case would proceed on a normal schedule.  On a normal schedule, Trump would then ask for rehearing from the full D.C. Circuit.  If and when the D.C. Circuit declined to rehear the case (the ruling in almost all cases), Trump would then have ninety days (plus any extensions) to ask for certioarari (the formal order taking the appeal) from the Supreme Court.  In some cases, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court issues a stay, it will also treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari.  The special prosecutor, in his response to the stay application, while arguing for the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the stay, made the alternative argument that, if the U.S. Supreme Court did grant the stay, it should exercise that power to treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari and expedite the case. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Super Tuesday Week

By tmess2 | Published March 2, 2024

Tuesday is Super Tuesday — the first Tuesday of the primary cycle in which any state can hold a primary contest.  As most states use state-run primaries, there will be a large number of states on Tuesday.

But, before Super Tuesday, several states that are using party-run contests will be holding Republican contests as the “window” for the Republicans opened yesterday.  (The “window” for Democrats opens on Tuesday.)  As discussed last week, one of the contests today is the second half of the Republican’s Michigan two-step with the Republican state convention which will be allocating the “district” level delegates.  In addition to Michigan, today will see events in Missouri and Idaho.

The Missouri Republican rules are somewhat ambiguous.  It looks like they are doing a traditional caucus with a 15% threshold and an unspecified winner-take-all kicker at local option.  But rather than allocating delegates based on today’s vote (which is what the national rules appear to require), they are merely binding the delegates chosen today to vote the same preference at the district conventions (which should effectively have the same result).  Missouri is using a caucus because our current Secretary of State repeatedly lied and claimed that the state-run primary was nonbinding (when the rules of both party made the primary binding) and a repeal of the primary was slipped into an omnibus election bill which passed despite the unanimous opposition of Democratic legislature).  The Democrats will be holding a party-run primary in three weeks with a mail-in option. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, House of Representatives, Presidential Candidates, Primary Elections, Senate | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment