The Gavel: Comey, James head to distinct jury pools

The Hill's weekly courts news digest.

By Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld   |   Wednesday, October 15 By Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee Wednesday, October 15 © AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File; AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey Comey, James head to distinct jury pools President Trump's adversaries battling criminal charges will face vastly different jury pools — if their cases ever get to trial.   Two of the president's most prominent foes, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), were hit with two federal counts each in recent weeks, and a third opponent, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, could face charges as soon as this week.   They'll all go before juries drawn from Democratic-friendly areas in Maryland and Virginia. But some are much bluer than others.  Jurors for Comey will come from deep-blue Northern Virginia, while those for James will be drawn from the more politically balanced Hampton Roads region. Bolton would face a jury sitting in Baltimore or Greenbelt, Md., two divisions where support for Democrats varies.  And their liberal tint aside, each division has pockets of Trump support.  Both Comey and James were charged in the Eastern District of Virginia. It serves more than two-thirds of the state, about 6.5 million people altogether.  But the cases are proceeding in different divisions within the district, each with a distinct jury pool.   Comey was charged with false statements and obstruction stemming from congressional testimony he gave in 2020. He pleaded not guilty.  The indictment was handed up by a grand jury sitting in Alexandria, a division including deep-blue areas in Northern Virginia like Arlington and Fairfax counties.   We took a look at the 2024 election results from The Hill's partners at Decision Desk HQ:  Former Vice President Harris beat Trump by 30 percentage points in the areas that make up the Alexandria division in the 2024 presidential race. She won 63.8 percent of the vote, compared to Trump's 33.7 percent.  The division stretches further south and west beyond the immediate suburbs of Washington, D.C., to redder areas — including one county Trump won in 2024, Fauquier County, and another he just barely lost, Stafford County.  James, too, was indicted by an Alexandria-based grand jury. But her case will now proceed in the Norfolk division, where the house at the center of the charges against her is located.  The New York attorney general faces counts of bank fraud and false statements to a financial institution over allegations she lied about her plans for the Virginia home, allowing her to obtain more favorable loan terms. She has not yet entered a plea but called the charges "baseless" after they were announced.  Voters in the Norfolk division also preferred Harris in 2024, but by a smaller margin of about 11 percentage points. Harris won 55.6 percent of the vote, compared to Trump's 44.2 percent.  The division comprises a major chunk of the Hampton Roads region. It includes cities like Virginia Beach, Suffolk and Portsmouth, but also two smaller counties Trump carried, Accomack and Isle of Wright.  Bolton is expected to be indicted in Maryland, where he lives. The state is split into two divisions: northern cases go to Baltimore, and southern cases go to Greenbelt.  It remains to be seen at which courthouse a case against Bolton will be brought, assuming that one is. But that decision could have an impact on which jurors are summoned.  In the Greenbelt division, Harris outperformed Trump by more than 50 percentage points. She won 75.5 percent of the vote, compared to Trump's 22 percent. The division is mostly made up of the immediate D.C. suburbs, including Montgomery County, the state's most populous jurisdiction, and Southern Maryland.  Meanwhile, in the Baltimore division, which stretches from the Eastern Shore to the state's westernmost point, Harris beat Trump by a more meager 14 points. She earned 55.8 percent of the vote there, compared to Trump's 41.6 percent.  Now, all that only matters if the cases are put before a jury. And if the Trump foes' defense attorneys have any say, that may never happen.   Comey's attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said at a hearing last Wednesday that the defense planned to file two tranches of motions seeking to dismiss the charges ahead of the former FBI director's trial, which is slated for Jan. 5.   Motions alleging vindictive prosecution at Trump's direction and challenging the appointment of Trump's handpicked U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, are already planned, he said. Other possible motions could allege grand jury abuse and outrageous government conduct.  Comey notified the court of his intention to challenge Halligan's appointment Tuesday, pointing to cases where judges found other Trump-loyalist U.S. attorneys were unlawfully serving in their roles.  On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit will hear oral arguments over acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba's appointment, which a judge deemed unlawful after criminal defendants facing federal drug trafficking charges challenged her involvement in their case.   The acting U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada, Sigal Chattah, was similarly found to be unlawfully serving in her post.  James has not yet made her first court appearance, which is set for Oct. 24 before a magistrate judge in Norfolk. However, her rhetoric following the indictment suggested a similar tactic could soon follow.  After the charges were announced, she said in a statement that the allegations against her represented Trump's "desperate weaponization of our justice system" and said his "only goal is political retribution at any cost."  Will Thomas, a business law professor at the University of Michigan, told The Gavel that case law around selective and vindictive prosecution has not really covered a case like James's or Comey's, more typically covering targeting of race or religion — a "testament" to the nation's long-standing commitment to neutral enforcement of the rule of law, he said.   But he anticipated judges might feel pressured to fit the cases into existing legal doctrine or stretch the doctrines to "meet the moment."  "At the very least, what Trump has done in public — calling for the prosecution of his political adversaries, only to have them prosecuted shortly thereafter — is terrible fact for a prosecutor to have to deal with," he said.    Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48).   Not already on the list? Subscribe here. IN FOCUS La. congressional maps; RIFs; National Guard challenges Louisiana gov wants Supreme Court out of redistricting  Louisiana's congressional maps will be scrutinized by the Supreme Court on Wednesday for a second time, in a case that could transform the role of race in elections.   The state's governor hopes that's the last of it.   On the eve of Louisiana's presentation to the justices, we chatted with Gov. Jeff Landry (R) about the legal battles that have tied the state's congressional maps up in the courts for half a decade and how it all ends.  Landry said in an interview with The Gavel that redistricting is meant to be a political process assigned to state legislatures, contending that the authority to redraw electoral district boundaries should always rest with elected representatives.   "What you've seen is that the more the court gets involved in a legislative process, the more it entangles itself in its own opinions," Landry told us. "Because what has happened is, each time it's had to render or address an opinion based upon redistricting, it's only complicated the process even further and ended up with a different series of litigation."  Wednesday will mark the second time the justices will hear arguments over Louisiana's current map, more specifically the state's addition of a second majority-Black congressional district.  The justices were expected to release a decision in the case alongside their other final opinions in June last term but instead said they needed to hear a new round of arguments.   This time, the focus will be on whether race-based redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is still constitutional. The provision prevents states from discriminating against voters because of their race or color.  Louisiana has asked the high court to bar any consideration of race in redistricting, a practice it described as "fundamentally contrary to our Constitution."  "Louisiana wants out of this abhorrent system of racial discrimination," Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill (R) wrote in an August filing, abandoning any defense of the state's current congressional map.  Critics of the state's position raise concerns that eliminating race-based redistricting could open the door to states disenfranchising voters of color or mark another stark blow to the Voting Rights Act.    But Landry said that's a "pretty prejudicial" way to look at it, suggesting it purports that people of color vote "monolithically."   "You're saying that you can automatically look at a person, and you can say based upon the color of their skin that you know how they're going to vote," he said. "I mean, think about it — that strikes against everything that the Constitution says."  The Constitution, he added, is "on Louisiana's side."  He said that things would be in a "much better place today" if legislators were given back authority that courts had "taken away."  Louisiana's congressional maps have been under legal fire since 2020.  First, Black voters and civil rights groups sued over a single majority-Black-district congressional map they claimed diluted their power at the polls. A three-judge panel agreed. The Supreme Court let that map stay in place ahead of the 2022 midterms. Then, it threw it out after deciding a different state's redistricting case.   After that, Louisiana drew a new map with two majority-Black districts to avoid a court drawing new boundaries for it. But self-described "non-African American" voters sued over that map, a three-judge panel invalidated it and the case landed back at the Supreme Court. It was in effect for last year's elections and remains before the justices.   Landry said he wants to see Louisiana stop spending tens of millions of dollars on litigation, claiming some $40 million has gone toward redistricting since 2012 — taxpayer dollars "needlessly" spent because courts intervened in "purely a legislative and political function."  "I think that voters in Louisiana are fatigued," Landry said. "Because every time they turn around, it's another lawsuit coming up with a different opinion, under which the court gives us another hurdle to jump through, only to find ourselves back in the litigation circus."  Wednesday's arguments stand to mark the beginning of the end of the dispute.  "I'm hoping that this case ends it, plain and simple — is the end," Landry said. "I hope that this is the end of the tracks."  Shutdown RIFs headed for court showdown  Trump's efforts to lay off federal employees during the shutdown are headed for a court showdown Wednesday.  U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, an appointee of former President Clinton, will hold a hearing in San Francisco on an emergency effort by government employee unions to block the reductions in force, known as RIFs.  The unions launched the lawsuit just before the shutdown began, but the challenge took on new urgency when Trump made good on his threats Friday to lay off employees.  Arguing that the firings "rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the governing law," the unions contend Trump only has authority to furlough workers or exempt them with backpay.   The administration rejects that assertion. But it hopes llston never gets that far.  The Justice Department's defense primarily rests on the notion that agency adjudicators like the Merit Systems Protection Board — not federal courts — must decide the disputes.   "No matter how Plaintiffs style their claims, these disputes concern the federal employer-employee relationship and must be channeled through the avenues created by Congress," the Justice Department wrote in court filings ahead of the hearing.  It's not Illston's first rodeo with the issue. In May, she rejected the argument as she halted mass layoffs across the federal bureaucracy that predated the shutdown, but the Supreme Court later lifted the block.  With the new lawsuit in hand, the Clinton-appointed judge has already forced the government to provide public updates about its shutdown plans.  Friday's layoffs were announced just hours before Illston's first deadline. The government provided another update last night, indicating more than 4,000 employees were impacted: Treasury: 1,337  Health and Human Services: 982  Education: 466  Housing and Urban Development: 442  Commerce: ~600  Energy: 179  Homeland Security: 54  Environmental Protection Agency: 28 The numbers continue to evolve. A senior administration official told The Gavel to think of the court-ordered updates as merely a "snapshot in time" and that "more RIFs are coming." Already, the figure has fallen sharply at the Department of Health and Human Services. Chief Human Capital Officers Thomas Nagy wrote in a declaration Tuesday that RIF notices were improperly sent to nearly 800 employees because of "data discrepancies and processing errors." One other aspect to watch as Wednesday's hearing gets underway: Trump's own comments.  "It will be Democrat oriented, because we figure, you know, they started this thing, so they should be Democrat oriented," Trump said in the Oval Office Friday.  The unions have raised the comment to Illston, accusing Trump of politically discriminating against certain employees in the cuts. The Justice Department in court filings called the accusation "nothing but speculation and scattered quotations."  Courts grapple with reality in National Guard challenges  To hear the Trump administration describe scenes out of cities like Chicago or Portland, where the National Guard has been deployed, is harrowing.   In court filings, they say "agitators" have assaulted federal law enforcement with rocks and bricks, pepper spray and incendiary devices. They say they've threatened Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers at work, at home and online, and in one case, a gang leader placed a $10,000 bounty on the murder of a top Border Patrol official.  Trump himself has said that ICE facilities are "under siege."   But officials from both Illinois and Oregon paint a very different picture. They say in their own court papers that protests have been "small" and largely peaceful, calling the administration's descriptions "wildly hyperbolic" and "pretext" for bringing military forces into states whose Democratic leadership the president does not like.  The starkly different portrayals of the reality on the ground from federal and local leaders are leaving courts with the challenging task of parsing what's true — and what's not — as they weigh Trump's efforts to send National Guard troops into cities.  Trump has so far called the National Guard into federal service in Illinois and Oregon under a provision of Title 10 that lets presidents deploy the troops for three reasons: to fend off an invasion, suppress a rebellion or pave the way for the president to execute the law.   So far, district judges in Illinois and Oregon have sided with local officials questioning whether Trump had a lawful basis to do so in these cases.   U.S. District Judge April Perry raised skepticism about the state-of-play during a hearing last week in Chicago, where she temporarily blocked Trump's federalization and deployment of the National Guard.  "DHS's narrative of events is simply unreliable," said Perry, an appointee of former President Biden, according to the Associated Press.   U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, expressed similar concern in granting Oregon and Portland officials' request to regain control of National Guard troops there.   "The President's determination was simply untethered to the facts," she wrote, contending that while the president is "certainly entitled" to a great level of deference, that is not equivalent to "ignoring the facts on the ground."   Now on appeal, the administration has scored a partial victory. Trump has temporarily taken back command of the troops in Illinois and Oregon, but he still can't deploy them.  At oral arguments last week, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit seemed less convinced they should discard the administration's perception.    "I'm sort of trying to figure out how a district court of any nature is supposed to get in and question whether the president's assessment of executing the laws is right or wrong," said Judge Ryan Murphy, a Trump appointee.   Murphy got tense with Oregon, wondering how the state could question the administration's assertion that the National Guard was needed to relieve 115 federal officers who were pulled from their usual posts and sent to Portland, straining resources.  "Because it's not true," said Oregon Assistant Attorney General Stacy Chaffin.  She contended that many of those "surge forces" were returned before Trump's announcement to send in the National Guard.  Murphy pushed back that the law plainly says the president may call up the troops if he cannot execute the laws.   "That's an internal decision making," the judge said, "and whether there's a ton of protests or low protests, they can still have an impact on his ability to execute the laws."  The 9th Circuit panel has not yet ruled on the administration's request for a stay pending appeal, and arguments have not been scheduled its mirrored request to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which hears appeals arising out of Illinois.   SIDEBAR 5 top docket updates Letitia James indicted: New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) was hit with two criminal charges alleging mortgage fraud in the Eastern District of Virginia. She's the second Trump foe to face criminal prosecution following his vows for retribution.  Comey plea and trial set: Former FBI Director James Comey, another Trump adversary, pleaded not guilty to charges tied to 2020 testimony he gave Congress and a trial was set for Jan. 5.  National Guard updates: Two federal appeals courts temporarily allowed Trump to federalize National Guard troops in Illinois and Oregon, though they can't be deployed anywhere in either state for now. The courts are now weighing whether to grant the administration's request to stay lower court orders blocking both federalization and deployment in both states pending appeal.  Bannon to SCOTUS: Ex-Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon asked the Supreme Court to toss his contempt of Congress conviction that followed his failure to comply the now-disbanded Jan. 6 committee's demands.   Abrego Garcia battle: A federal judge held a marathon hearing over whether the Trump administration is illegally punishing mistakenly deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia by floating his removal to various African countries that won't accept him instead of removing him to Costa Rica as he's requested. She has not yet ruled.  In other news Book tour brooding: Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said over the weekend he thinks the high court's opinions have become "too personal and confrontational," expressing that he's "actually somewhat concerned" about the institution. The remarks came as he was promoting his new memoir, "Life, Law & Liberty", which came out Tuesday.  About time: The indie news site Court Watch's Seamus Hughes says Google News is now ranking its stories. As fellow legal reporters and avid readers: finally!  Wop, wop, wop, wop, wop: A federal judge in Manhattan threw out Drake's defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group after determining Kendrick Lamar's lyrics dubbing the rapper a pedophile in his diss track "Not Like Us" were opinion. She started her ruling by acknowledging the suit stemmed from "perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre's history."  THE ORDER LIST Cases the Supreme Court is taking up — or passing on — this term. In: Plea appeal waivers The Supreme Court at Friday's conference agreed to hear one new case, Hunter v. United States.  Texas resident Munson Hunter is attempting to fight his sentence despite signing an appeal waiver with prosecutors as part of a plea deal.  Hunter agreed to plead guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud. The judge sentenced him to just over four years in prison.  As relevant to his Supreme Court case, the judge also ordered him to take all his prescribed mental health medications and told Hunter at sentencing, "you have a right to appeal."  Hunter appealed the medication requirement. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed it because of the appeal waiver he signed, and Hunter will urge the justices to revive his claim.  Out: Alex Jones, parental rights The Supreme Court declined to take up a handful of notable cases at the conference.  Check out The Hill's site for our coverage of the court's decisions to turn away ones from Alex Jones, a Michigan "fake elector", Judicial Watch and a teenage Grindr user.  But we want to focus on two petitions in which a justice opted to write some comments:  We highlighted the first, Lee v. Poudre School District R-1, last week. Two families asked the justices to revive their lawsuit against a Colorado school district after their daughters were allegedly discouraged from speaking with their parents about their sexual orientation and gender identity.  Justice Samuel Alito, joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said the court was right to turn down the case because the families weren't challenging the lower ruling's rationale. But the trio raised concerns about the broader parental rights issue.  "The troubling—and tragic—allegations in this case underscore the 'great and growing national importance' of the question that these parent petitioners present," Alito wrote.  In Humphreys v. Emmons, the court's three liberal justices dissented from the court's refusal to hear an appeal from convicted murderer Stacey Humphreys, who is on death row.  One of Humphreys' jurors was later found to have omitted details about their experience as a victim of a similar crime. During deliberations, the juror cursed, screamed and levied personal attacks at the others, eventually convincing them to change their votes and sentence Humphreys to death, court records show.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Humphreys' legal challenge was "buried in a procedural thicket," but Sotomayor would've at minimum left room for Humphreys' claims by sending it back to a lower court.  "In a capital case with a potentially meritorious juror misconduct claim, mere confusion about a lower court's reasoning does not justify closing the door to relief altogether. Nor is so harsh an outcome necessary here," Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.  Maybe: Religious rights, bankruptcy The court asked for the Trump administration's input on two pending petitions before deciding what to do, known as a call for the views of the solicitor general. The justices tend to go with the recommendation.  In Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, a Mennonite church is petitioning the court to strike down fines New Mexico issued over its health sharing ministry.  It's the latest case that targets Employment Division v. Smith, a controversial 1990 Supreme Court precedent that lessened religious protections. It held that "neutral" and "generally applicable" laws comply with the First Amendment, no matter how much they burden religious exercise.  Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have explicitly called for the precedent to be overruled. They need two more justices to do so, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are seen as the key votes, as they have expressed some openness to the idea.  The second petition, Highland Capital Management v. NexPoint Advisors, involves bankruptcy law.  PETITION PILE Petitions to take up cases that the justices are keeping a close eye on. This week, we take a look at two more petitions the justices have been mulling since the start of the term, and two newer petitions they appear to be closely considering.  Intrastate delivery drivers: The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) protects the integrity of certain arbitration agreements by making them enforceable in court. However, the law exempts employment contracts for "workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." In Flower Foods v. Brock, a major bakery operator wants the high court to construe the exception narrowly so that it doesn't apply to delivery drivers who don't cross state lines.  Servicemember injuries: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows damages lawsuits against the federal government for government workers' negligent acts. However, under decades-old Supreme Court precedent known as the Feres doctrine, the FTCA does not cover military servicemembers' injuries "in the course of activity incident to service." The family of an Air Force staff sergeant killed while  riding his motorcycle on a military base during his lunch break is seeking to revive their lawsuit. Lower courts dismissed it under the Feres doctrine, and the family wants the high court to narrow or even overrule the doctrine so the suit can proceed. The case is Beck v. United States.  Guns and drugs: In a series of petitions, the Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of a federal crime that prohibits firearm possession for unlawful drug users. The provision has become a prominent part of battles over the bounds of the Second Amendment in the wake of the high court's gun rights expansion in 2022. The lead case is United States v. Hemani.  Car accident lawsuit: Former Solicitor General Greg Garre is representing Thomas Keathley, who seeks damages from a construction company after one of its drivers collided with Keathley's truck. A lower court dismissed the suit because he didn't disclose the claim in his pending bankruptcy case. Keathley says there needed to be evidence of bad faith, but the nondisclosure was an honest mistake. The case is Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction.  ON THE DOCKET Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about Louisiana's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district in considering whether race-based redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains constitutional. The cases are Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais.  The justices will also hear oral arguments over the standard for police to enter a home without a search warrant in instances where the emergency exception to the 4th Amendment may apply. The case is Case v. Montana.  A federal judge in California is set to hold a temporary restraining order hearing in federal employee unions' challenge to the Trump administration's layoffs amid the government shutdown.  Thursday No cases on the docket we're watching Friday A federal judge in Oregon is expected to hold a telephonic hearing over whether to extend two temporary restraining orders blocking Trump's federalization and deployment of the National Guard in the state for another 14 days.   Monday The Supreme Court will announce orders.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit is set to hold oral arguments over whether Alina Habba, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, was lawfully appointed or should be disqualified from continuing to oversee cases.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is set to hear oral arguments in the Trump administration's appeal of a lower court's order blocking its ban on transgender troops serving openly in the military.  Tuesday A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing over five fishing boat associations' bid to block the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's limitations on commercial and recreational fishing for Atlantic Striped Bass along coastal waters.  WHAT WE'RE READING The Wall Street Journal's Josh Dawsey, Sadie Gurman and Aruna Viswanatha: Inside the Justice Department Where the President Calls the Shots  The Atlantic's Elizabeth Bruenig: Can a Murderer Earn Redemption?  The New York Times's Michael S. Schmidt: Chinese Hackers Said to Target U.S. Law Firms  Reuters's Nate Raymond: New England courts become a battleground for challenges to Trump  POLITICO Magazine's Ankush Khardori: What I Learned By Watching Every Pam Bondi Speech  We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here. Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics? Email us: elee@thehill.com and zschonfeld@thehill.com.  On Signal: @elee.03 and @zachschonfeld.48.  Privacy Policy   |   View in Browser    |   Manage Subscriptions Sign Up for Other Newsletters   |   Unsubscribe  400 N Capitol Street NW Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001 Copyright © 1998 - 2025 Nexstar Media Inc.   |   All Rights Reserved.

If you believe this has been sent to you in error, please safely unsubscribe.