We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, U.S., July 29, 2024.
Biden seeks Supreme Court reform
On Monday, President Joe Biden proposed reforms to the US Supreme Court for the first time since Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried and failed to expand the number of justices in 1937. In his address from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, TX, Biden proposed term limits, a constitutional amendment to counteract the recent presidential immunity decision, and a binding code of conduct.
“I have great respect for our institutions and the separations of powers,” Biden said. “But extremism is undermining public confidence in the court’s decisions.”
The nitty-gritty: Biden proposed 18-year term limits, enabling a president to appoint a new justice every two years. He also wants an enforcement mechanism added to the voluntary ethics code the court adopted in November, echoing Justice Elena Kagan’s support for an enforcement mechanism. Biden also called for a constitutional amendment to make clear that former presidents are not immune to federal criminal indictments.
“I thank President Biden for highlighting the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis,” said Dick Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But any legislation would need the support of a majority in the Republican-led house where Speaker Mike Johnson has called the proposal a “dangerous gambit” that would be “dead on arrival,” and accused the Democrats of delegitimizing the courts “simply because they disagree with some of its recent decisions.”
Biden has expressed disagreement with many of SCOTUS’s recent decisions, but this address marked a shift toward the progressive flank in his party, which has called for reforms even amid fears it would politicize the court. The proposals also come as Biden’s time in office draws to a close, and he made the announcement without reaching out to the Senate judiciary committee, signaling that is likely pre-election messaging, not a legislative priority.
However, presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris notably said she supports the reforms, which, if the Democrats manage to win the House in November, could potentially lead to some portion of them being implemented.
How the Supreme Court immunity ruling changes presidential power
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
What does the Supreme Court's immunity decision mean for Trump and the future of presidential power?
Well, for Trump, the first thing it means is that you're not going to be hearing about on the case of his involvement in January 6th. All of that gets punted until after the election earliest, assuming Biden wins and more likely these days, Trump. The case is kind of a dead letter. More broadly for presidential power. We're talking about immunity for all official acts that are engaged in during the course of a person's presidency. Now, in dissent, Justice Sotomayor, who's pretty far left on the court, has said that this doesn't prevent a president from engaging in treasonous acts and makes the president a king. Most jurists don't accept that, but it certainly does lead to huge questions about what is and what is not an official act. And of course, presidents would be inclined to argue that very broadly to be able to avoid the potential at any cases against them. So this is a pretty significant, not necessary momentous, but certainly very significant decision by the court.
With the far-right surging in the French elections, what would a caretaker government in France mean for Europe?
Well, it is more likely that we see a caretaker government than we see a far-right majority. And the efforts by President Macron and the left to ensure that they are not running against each other in the second round, triangular three-person elections make it more likely that you have a hung parliament. Then you have the far right in a cohabitation of this very unusual situation where the prime minister is opposition to the president. But what's going to happen is that you have a very, very weak French government and that almost nothing can pass in the next 12 months until another election would occur. It certainly makes Le Pen stronger. It makes it more likely that the far right is eventually able to defeat a Macron successor from the center in 2027.
And it also makes it more likely that the French budget is out of whack with the EU. They're not able to pass anything that looks like a balanced budget, that more parliamentary approvals for things like, additional support for Ukraine or training troops on the ground, would have a hard time getting through the French parliament if it requires such a vote. So it's a real challenge for the EU. It's a challenge for France.
Does the West have any concerns with Modi's upcoming visit to Russia?
Not really. The West relationship with Prime Minister Modi is very strong. Modi is increasingly decoupling the defense relationship between India and Russia. They buy a lot from Russia. No Indian technology goes to Russia the way that it does from China, for example. So you don't have that dual use problem. And India buys an awful lot of oil from Russia, at a discount. But that is in line with American and the West's policies, because they don't want a global recession. Modi and Putin, in principle, are supposed to visit each other every year. That hasn't happened. And so this is sort of getting that relationship in that regard on track. But I think there's not a lot strategically that the West is worried about near term here.
A view of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S. June 29, 2024.
SCOTUS muddies the AI regulation waters with Chevron decision
On Friday, the US Supreme Court struck down a landmark ruling on federal agencies’ power, known as “Chevron deference,” that required courts to defer to the agencies’ “reasonable” interpretations of “ambiguous” federal legislation.
This means federal regulations – from telecom and environmental rules to work safety and AI regulation – could now face increased legal challenges, which is a big win for conservatives looking to rein in the executive.
The case: While it sounds like an obscure chess gambit, “Chevron deference” was a pretty straightforward legal doctrine. It held that federal agencies could make their own rules when Congress left aspects of law ambiguous – which they often do – and that courts should defer to the expertise of each agency. But Friday’s ruling held that the executive branch was essentially carrying out lawmaking responsibilities that should be left to Congress.
The AI upshot? The immediate impacts on AI regulation will be limited because there isn’t much on the books yet. To get future regulations to stick under the new ruling, however, Congress will likely have to lay out regulations in minute detail or write laws specifically empowering agencies to cover certain aspects of regulation. Given how slowly Congress moves, the extra legwork could put regulation perpetually behind the pace of innovation. And Congress isn’t known for its tech expertise. Remember when Mark Zuckerberg had to remind one member how social media companies make money: “Senator, we run ads”? Or when another senator asked if the company would “end finsta”?
The danger here is that, depending on how the ruling is interpreted, Congress may have to be overly prescriptive about AI – “if itcan get a law passed at all,” says Eurasia Group’s Scott Bade. “Given how slowly Congress acts, the question then is whether laws can be written in a way that keeps up with the rapid evolution of AI technology.”Supreme Court: Trump gets substantial immunity
The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a big win on Monday. In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for actions related to their core responsibilities while in office. The decision will almost certainly delay the charges brought against the former president in Washington, DC, for allegedly plotting to overthrow the 2020 election.
Trump contends that he is entitled to absolute immunity from the three conspiracy charges and one count of obstructing an official proceeding brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Lower courts rejected the claim, but SCOTUS has ordered them to reassess whether Trump’s alleged action on Jan. 6 “qualifies as official or unofficial,” with the understanding that he would be immune from prosecution for official actions carried out as president.
The rationale: The court’s basic argument was that without these protections, a president would be unable to do his or her unique job independently and effectively, for fear of being prosecuted by political opponents or successors.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Monday's immunity decision, "effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding."
Joe Biden spoke out against the ruling on Monday night, echoing Sotomayor's sentiment that “there are no kings in America,” and said that the ruling means there are “virtually no limits” on presidential power. The president also said that voters deserved to have an answer through the courts before Election Day about what took place on Jan. 6. The court's ruling called for prosecutors to detail their evidence against Trump in front of a federal judge — and the public — at a fact-finding hearing, though it is unclear whether that will take place before Nov. 5.
Trump has prevailed in the court this session. Even before the rulings, the high court’s decision to take up the immunity case worked in Trump’s favor to delay his prosecution until after the November election.
The court also heard two other Trump-related cases this term concerning Jan. 6. The first, an attempt to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, was unanimously rejected in March. The second ruling limited the use of a federal obstruction law to prosecute rioters who allegedly stormed the Capitol, and it will also affect Trump’s DC indictment because two of the four charges against him are based on that law.
Monday's immunity decision followed a wave of consequential rulings on Friday. Potentially the most impactful, but least flashy, was the Chevron decision, which limits the power of federal agencies and undermines the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies.
In its final decision of the session, the court on Monday also ruled to keep in place a hold on any efforts by Texas and Florida state governments to limit how social media platforms regulate content, ordering the lower courts to review the case again. The court will reconvene in October.
US Supreme Court
SCOTUS throws a bone to Jan. 6 rioters
On Friday, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that hampers the Justice Department's ability to charge rioters for taking part in Jan. 6 riot on the grounds that they obstructed an official proceeding (the counting of the electoral college votes). The prosecutors were charging the rioters using a statute that forbids tampering with evidence and was enacted in 2002 in regard to the Enron accounting scandal.
In a 6-3 decision along nonideological lines, the court said that prosecutors must prove that defendants attempted to tamper with or destroy documents or “other things used in the proceeding” for the charge to apply.
Federal prosecutors have charged hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants with obstructing an official proceeding, as the Capitol attack aimed to upend Congress’s certification of President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. Former President Donald Trump also faces the charge in his federal Jan. 6 case.
Is this a win for Trump?"It's still unclear how this ruling impacts Trump specifically, but it could overturn many of the prosecutions against Jan. 6 defendants who are not Trump,” says Eurasia Group analyst Noah Daponte-Smith. “Even if the ruling does vacate some of the charges against Trump, it doesn't threaten the main thrust of his trial — he still faces two other charges."
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor makes a point as she answers questions during the third day of her U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill in Washington July 15, 2009.
Sotomayor accuses conservative justices of ‘power grab’
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Thursday did not mince words in a dissenting opinion over the Supreme Court’s ruling that limits the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, accusing the conservative majority of making a “power grab” by undermining the enforcement power of federal agencies.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court said the SEC’s in-house tribunals that are overseen by administrative law judges who report to federal agencies — as opposed to federal courts — violated the right to a trial by jury.
What’s the big deal? The decision hampers the SEC’s ability to penalize people it thinks have committed fraud. It could also have major implications for the enforcement powers of other regulatory agencies.
“Litigants seeking further dismantling of the ‘administrative state’ have reason to rejoice in their win today, but those of us who cherish the rule of law have nothing to celebrate,” Sotomayor wrote.
SCOTUS ain’t done. The court has not yet issued rulings in the Trump immunity case or the case pertaining to Jan. 6 rioters, both of which touch on hot-button issues as the country barrels toward a presidential election that many voters are not especially enthused about.
An attendee at an abortion rights rally holds a sign outside the Idaho Capitol on May 14. The U.S. Supreme CourtÂ’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two landmark abortion cases, triggers a law in Idaho that bans most abortions.
Leaked Supreme Court document indicates emergency abortion protection in Idaho
A draft opinion mistakenly posted to the Supreme Court’s website on Wednesday indicated the justices plan to allow for emergency abortions in Idaho and to dismiss Boise’s appeal. The court later released a statement saying no final decision has been issued, but if the leaked decision holds, it could be a sign conservatives are seeing the need to moderate on abortion.
This doesn’t mean abortion will be federally legal again. By dismissing the case, the justices are punting on the question, but it does mean women in Idaho whose health may be threatened by pregnancy-related issues can get an abortion. The case will not affect other states that have implemented limits or bans on abortion care.
Abortion-related leaks are becoming a pattern. The court’s decision in the case that overturned Roe v. Wade and removed federal abortion protections was also leaked early in 2022 (also an election year), to Politico in that instance. Could it could be a symptom of an increasingly politicized court? Leaking an inflammatory opinion may help politicians rally their bases in the runup to Election Day.
We’re watching for how this decision plays into the rhetoric around abortion at tonight’s presidential debate, and whether it has a measurable effect in November.
A herd of cows standing on top of a lush green field.
Hard Numbers: Danes tax cow farts, SCOTUS sides with Biden (on social), Deadly mpox strain hits DRC, China’s lunar probe returns
6-3: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the government can go to combat misinformation on social media when it comes to topics like COVID-19 and election security. The case stemmed from administration efforts to have platforms remove posts that touched on issues like COVID vaccines and election fraud.
8,000: There have been nearly 8,000 cases of a new strain of mpox, aka monkeypox, this year in the Democratic Republic of Congo, including 384 deaths – almost half of which were children under 15. The virus, which can cause lesions across the whole body, has been spreading at a worrying rate, risking cross-border and international spread of the virus.
4.5 billion: China’s lunar probe has returned to Earth with the first-ever samples from the unexplored far side of the moon. The Chang’e-6 landed in the Inner Mongolia desert on Tuesday after a nearly two-month mission that was fraught with risk. Scientists hope the samples will help test theories about how the moon was formed 4.5 billion years ago and whether it resulted from a collision with a very early version of Earth.