By Ella Lee | Wednesday, December 17 |
|
|
By Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee Wednesday, December 17 |
|
|
Navarro presses contempt of Congress appeal |
Peter Navarro's appeal of his contempt of Congress conviction may seem, to some, unnecessary. Last year, fresh out of prison after serving a 4-month stint for refusing to abide a congressional subpoena, he was whisked onto the Republican National Convention stage and welcomed back into the fold. With President Trump back in the White House, so, too, is Navarro, reprising his role as trade adviser to a president who is chiefly concerned with leading a transformation of the global economy. The Justice Department has even dropped its defense of his prosecution, telling the court that it would no longer take the "same position as the prior administration in this case" — news most defendants would welcome. But it's always been bigger than one man's fight for Navarro, whose appeal is set to be heard by a panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit judges on Thursday. On Sept. 7, 2023, the day a jury found him guilty of refusing to cooperate with a House Jan. 6 committee subpoena, Navarro told reporters that he expected his case to reach the Supreme Court. He reasoned that, at its core, the case poses vital questions about executive privilege for senior White House officials. Navarro claims that Trump invoked executive privilege, which prevented him from testifying before the House Jan. 6 committee or turning over documents it sought. But the district judge at trial barred him from using executive privilege as part of his defense after finding he failed to prove the president invoked it in the first place. "I am willing to go to prison to settle this issue," he said at the time. "I'm willing to do that." After efforts to stave off his sentence while appealing failed, he did go to prison. He wrote in an op-ed published by The Hill that, if he loses the "landmark case of first impression," future presidential advisers of both parties would face the same choice he did — "dishonor their oath" or "defend" executive privilege and risk prison. "Strip away the politics, and that is the core question — one that reaches all the way back to George Washington's doctrine of executive privilege and forward to every future presidency," Navarro wrote in September. "If advisers can be jailed for honoring privilege, then candid advice will die, replaced by lawyered-up self-protection and paralysis in the West Wing." When the Justice Department bowed out, Navarro sought to force its hand to explain itself. Prosecutors did not give any insight into the administration's rationale for the about-face but did urge the appeals court to appoint a friend-of-the-court to represent the opposing side. However, the judges rejected the request. They said that by striking its brief, the government is "deemed to have withdrawn" from further participation in the appeal. Only Navarro's lawyer will argue before the panel Thursday, given 15 minutes to make his case. It charts an uneasy path to the Supreme Court's docket, Navarro's hopeful destination. But his bid to overturn his conviction could land at the high court alongside ex-White House adviser Steve Bannon's, which is already pending before the justices. Bannon, who, like Navarro, was found guilty on two counts of contempt of Congress for evading a House Jan. 6 committee subpoena, asked the Supreme Court in October to toss his conviction and heighten the standard for bringing future contempt cases. "Political winds change, but the requirements for criminal prosecution should not — least of all when it comes to a statute fraught with implications for the separation of powers," his petition reads. His appeal was set to be distributed to the justices at one of its weekly conferences in November, but a response was requested from the Justice Department. The government is due to respond by Jan. 9. |
|
|
Wisconsin judge on trial; Florida executions |
3 questions as Wisconsin judge's trial unfolds |
When Judge Hannah Dugan faces a jury this week, she will have an unfamiliar view. Instead of being on the bench, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge will be seated at the defense table in a Wisconsin federal courthouse as her criminal trial on charges she helped a man evade arrest by immigration authorities unfolds. Dugan was suspended after her arrest. Her case falls at the junction of contentious politics, from Trump's crackdown on immigration to his locking-horns with the judiciary. But major questions could soon be answered. Here's what the trial could reveal: What really happened? What really went down during the incident that prompted Dugan's arrest is still in dispute. Prosecutors say that after the judge learned Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents sought to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz for being in the U.S. without permanent legal status, she guided him out a back door of her courtroom. Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national, was set to appear in Dugan's courtroom on three misdemeanor counts of battery. He has since been deported. Dugan was arrested in April inside the courthouse where she worked and indicted in May on two federal charges of obstruction and concealing an individual from arrest. Video from the courthouse shows Dugan pointing federal agents toward the chief judge's office that day — and she hasn't disputed she led Flores-Ruiz out of her courtroom — so prosecutors must prove that her efforts were to block his arrest. A member of the arrest team said Tuesday that he remembered thinking that the officers were in a "bad spot" because of Dugan's directive to head toward the chief judge's chambers. Team members had to chase Flores-Ruiz down through traffic instead of safely arresting them in the building, he and other arresting officers testified. But defense attorney Steven Biskupic noted that the judge did not obstruct the team from arresting Flores-Ruiz in the public hallway her courtroom exited to, instead of waiting until he was outside. "Now, after the fact, everyone wants to blame Judge Dugan," Biskupic said, according to the Associated Press. Did Dugan cross a line? Prosecutors and Dugan's defense attorney have painted vastly different pictures of her conduct. The government is essentially trying to prove that Dugan's actions made it harder and less safe for federal agents to do their jobs, our sister network, NewsNation, said in a dispatch from the Wisconsin federal courthouse. The defense, meanwhile, is attempting to suggest that her actions did not violate the law or impede federal operations. Whether Dugan is convicted could hinge on how the jury interprets her intent. In court Monday, the government played audio recordings seeking to show that the judge knew what was at stake. "I'll get the heat," Dugan told her court reporter as they talked about who would help Flores-Ruiz, according to courtroom audio heard by the AP. However, Biskupic argued that a draft courthouse policy directed court officials to refer immigration agents planning arrests in the building to superiors. If convicted, Dugan faces up to five years in prison — though, first time offenders rarely receive the harshest punishment. But whether it gets to that point is up to the jury to decide. In the court of public opinion, the Trump administration has branded Dugan an "activist judge" while local Democrats have portrayed her as an ethical advocate. "Taking a moral action is not a federal crime," the Democratic Party of Milwaukee County said in April. What could come up in an appeal? If Dugan is convicted, an appeal is likely inevitable. There are already some breadcrumbs as to what the focus of her challenge may be. Ahead of trial, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman rejected arguments from Dugan that she has only acted in her official capacity and thus is immune from prosecution. The judge declined to dismiss the charges, allowing the trial to proceed. "The dispute between the parties boils down to this: Defendant posits a general rule of immunity, subject to certain exceptions which account for the previous (and legitimate) prosecutions of judges," Adelman wrote in a 27-page decision in August. "According to the government, there is no general rule of immunity, and what defendant calls exceptions are simply examples of the types of prosecutions that have been brought against judges. "A review of the relevant history reveals the government has the better of the argument," the federal judge added. However, the judge noted that Dugan raised "very real concerns." The issue will likely be central to any review of the jury's ultimate decision. |
Florida spike drove 2025 execution numbers nationwide |
A surge in Florida executions drove the nationwide total to a 15-year high even as public approval of the death penalty is on the decline, a new report on 2025 capital punishment statistics found. The Sunshine State executed 18 of the 46 people whose death sentences have been carried out this year in the U.S. This week, two more executions are scheduled in Georgia and Florida that would bring the national figure to 48 executions and 19 in Florida, or 40% of the year's total. It's a dramatic jump from 2024, which saw 25 total executions. The figures were released Monday by the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonpartisan research group focused on capital punishment data and analysis. The group cautioned that the figures could change if additional death sentences were handed down. In 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill ending the state's requirement that a jury must unanimously recommend a death sentence in capital felony cases, making it an outlier among other states that still allow executions. It came in the aftermath of a jury's inability to unanimously agree on a death sentence recommendation for the Parkland school shooter, prompting backlash against the state. Trump, too, has taken increasingly aggressive approach toward capital punishment this year, ending former President Biden's moratorium on federal executions on his first day back in the White House and calling for death sentences in high-profile cases. The Justice Department is pursuing the death penalty in the case against Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare's CEO last year and has signaled it may seek executions for other defendants. That includes a man charged in the shooting death of two Israeli embassy staffers in D.C. and the Afghan national accused of gunning down one National Guard member and hospitalizing another. But in the 27 states that still allow the death penalty, it went unused in more than half of them. Death sentences have been carried out in 11 states this year, though Georgia's upcoming execution, set for Dec. 17, will make that 12. After Florida, the states of Texas, Alabama and South Carolina three-way-tie for the next-most executions, with five each. It reflects the nationwide trend of a turning tide on capital punishment, DPI's report concluded. Some 22 new death sentences were imposed this year, down from 26 in 2024, and only 14 juries across the country were able to unanimously agree to impose capital punishment. When capital juries were asked to decide between life and death sentences, more than half chose life, according to DPI's research. Meanwhile, the polling firm Gallup's 2025 death penalty deep-dive saw support for executions at a 50-year low of 52%. "The data show that the decisions of Gov. DeSantis and other elected officials are increasingly at odds with the decisions of American juries and the opinions of the American public," Robin Maher, executive director of DPI, said in a statement that accompanied the report. |
|
|
- Terror plot stymied: Attorney General Pam Bondi said U.S. officials foiled a planned terror attack in Los Angeles, arresting four people allegedly plotting to launch a series of bombings on New Year's Eve.
- Contempt hearing on ice: A federal appeals court agreed to temporarily block U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's planned contempt hearings this week after the Trump administration asked to halt his review and boot him from the case, which stems from Trump's March invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
- Another Letitia James no bill: DOJ failed again to secure a new indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) after its initial case against her was dismissed, the second time a grand jury has refused to approve charges this month.
- Abrego Garcia released: A federal judge ordered immigration officials to immediately release Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongfully deported man who is now back in the United States facing criminal charges. He remains protected from being removed to El Salvador again.
- National Guard blocked in LA: Trump was ordered to end his deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles, as a federal judge ruled he must return control of the force to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).
|
- Hollywood horror: Director Rob Reiner and his wife, producer Michele Singer Reiner, were found dead at their Los Angeles home Sunday. Their son, Nick, was arrested and on Tuesday was charged with two-counts of first-degree murder.
- Pardon fallout: A man accused of voting for Trump twice in the 2020 presidential election contends that his criminal case should be thrown out because Trump's presidential pardon for allies who sought to subvert his election loss should also apply to his charges — and a judge seemed open to the argument, according to Votebeat. (Readers, you may recall: We reported last month that the pardon's broad language could amount to a blank check for unexpected beneficiaries.)
- Not-so-neighborly: The Florida municipalities of Palm Beach and West Palm Beach took legal action Friday in aim of compelling the Federal Aviation Administration to review and explain why it banned aircraft from flying over Trump's Mar-a-Lago club.
|
|
|
Cases the Supreme Court is taking up — or passing on — this term. |
|
|
The Supreme Court will review the conviction of a Mississippi death row inmate who claims he was discriminated against by prosecutors who blocked Black jurors from sitting on the panel in his 2006 trial. Terry Pitchford, who is Black, was found guilty by a jury for his role in a 2004 robbery gone wrong. He was 18 at the time, and though 16-year-old Eric Bullins, another Black teenager, pulled the trigger that killed grocery shopkeeper Reuben Britt, Pitchford was sentenced to death. Over objections from Pitchford's attorneys, prosecutors excluded four Black jurors from the panel that would hear his case, a move they said was motivated by racial discrimination. Now, the justices have agreed to consider whether the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that Pitchford waived his right to challenge the race-neutral reasons prosecutors put forth for striking the four prospective jurors after his trial. |
|
|
| Out: Federal marijuana law challenge |
|
|
The Supreme Court will not weigh a challenge to the federal illegality of marijuana. Four commercial cannabis growers in Massachusetts asked the court to reconsider its 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, which held that Congress may bar the purely local production, distribution and possession of marijuana that is authorized by state law. The businesses argued that times have changed; state-regulated marijuana is distinguishable from interstate marijuana, meaning Congress should no longer regulate it, they argued. "These changed circumstances show that — regardless of what standard the Court applies — Congress's prohibition on purely local, state-regulated marijuana can no longer be justified," their petition reads. The Justice Department waived its right to respond. |
|
|
Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: |
- A federal judge in California is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in government employee unions' challenge to the Trump administration's plan to effectuate a reduction-in-force, or RIF, at the State Department.
|
- Ryan Routh, the convicted would-be assassin of Trump, is set to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is set to hear oral arguments in White House trade adviser Peter Navarro's appeal of his contempt of Congress conviction.
- The D.C. Circuit is also set to hear oral arguments in immigration rights organizations' appeal of an order denying their request for a preliminary injunction blocking a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) interim final rule that would require noncitizens to submit biometric data and carry proof of the registration.
- A federal judge in California is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to Department of Education grant terminations brought by six University of California (UC) faculty members and researchers, who are seeking to block the directives for a class of UC researchers.
- A federal judge in Oregon is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit that claims federal agencies in Oregon have a policy of denying access to counsel following immigration arrests.
|
- A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s requirement that states meet certain conditions to receive Continuum of Care grants, brought by 20 states and D.C.
- A federal judge in Maine is set to hold a temporary restraining order hearing in a challenge brought by hospitals to a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) pilot program that would alter the 340B program, which provides discounts for hospitals that serve low-income and rural patients.
|
- The Justice Department and government employee unions suing the administration are set to submit a joint status report to a federal judge in Washington, D.C., proposing next steps in a case over Trump's order stripping collective bargaining rights from most federal workers.
|
- No notable hearings are scheduled.
|
|
|
We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here. |
400 N Capitol Street NW Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001
Copyright © 1998 - 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment