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 }}
Former President Donald Trump walks out of the courtroom following the first day of jury selection at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, NY on Monday, April 15, 2024.
Supreme Court considers laws that could affect Jan. 6 charges
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could eliminate some of the federal charges Donald Trump is facing in the case accusing him of plotting to subvert the 2020 election and the prosections of the hundreds of rioters involved in the Jan. 6 attack. This comes just a day after jury selection began in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, with dozens of potential jurors being excused after they told the judge they could not be impartial.
The high court judges will consider whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted in the wake of the energy giant Enron’s collapse, can be used against Joseph W. Fischer, a former police officer who participated in the Capitol assault.
The law makes it a crime to obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding. It was enacted to prohibit the destruction of evidence, but in this case, it is being argued that by entering the Capitol, rioters like Fischer obstructed the counting of electoral ballots.
The law is involved in two of the federal charges against Trump in his election subversion case. If the Supreme Court rules that it does not apply to Fischer, Trump is almost certain to argue it does not apply to his conduct either.
Graphic Truth: Abortion meds in SCOTUS case are crucial
The US Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday on whether access to mifepristone, an oral drug used to terminate a pregnancy, should be restricted. The drug works by blocking progesterone, a hormone that’s necessary for a pregnancy to continue. The case centers on whether changes the FDA made in 2016 and 2021, which broadened access to the drug, should be rolled back.
Activists hold up a banner following arguments in former U.S. President Donald Trump's appeal of a lower court's ruling disqualifying him from the Colorado presidential primary ballot, in Washington, U.S., February 8, 2024.
SCOTUS seems unlikely to disqualify Trump in Colorado case
On Thursday, the Supreme Court considered a case that could determine whether Donald Trump can be barred from Colorado’s primary ballot – its most direct involvement in an election since Bush v. Gore.
The two main issues were whether the president is considered an “officer of the United States” and so ineligible for reelection if found guilty of insurrection under the 14th Amendment, and whether disqualifying him would require congressional approval.
SCOTUS is likely to rule in Trump’s favor. Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the 14th Amendment was enacted to restrict state power, and that letting states decide candidate eligibility could have snowballing implications if partisans make a habit of trying to disqualify their opposition.
The question is whether SCOTUS will issue a broad opinion about Trump’s eligibility for the general election to preemptively squash future 14th Amendment legal challenges. Several justices have indicated they might.
The court hasn’t said when it will issue its decision, only that it is likely to come before Colorado’s primary election on March 5, aka Super Tuesday.
Former U.S. President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump..
Two major Trump trial decisions this week
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump is not immune to criminal charges for things he did while president. Specifically: the DC federal indictment accusing him of trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court to delay the DC trial, stalling it until SCOTUS decides whether to take up the case before its session ends in July.
SCOTUS is hearing its first Trump case this week. On Thursday, justices will decide whether the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment allows states to bar Trump from primary ballots, just over a month after Colorado and Maine disqualified him.
The insurrection clause says officeholders that “engaged in an insurrection” can’t be reelected. It was created to stop Confederates from regaining power after the Civil War and hasn’t been implemented since, so justices can decide how to enforce it.
The core question: Which is worse for democracy, taking a candidate off the ballot or an alleged insurrectionist returning to power?
What to watch: Whether SCOTUS rules that Jan. 6, 2021, was an insurrection, even if they also decide to keep Trump on the ballot. If they do, that would empower prosecutors in the DC federal indictment and an upcoming case on Jan. 6 participants.
Ballot battle: Colorado vs Trump
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
Is the Colorado Supreme Court going to block Trump from appearing on the ballot there?
The answer is probably not, but they might. The Colorado Supreme Court, this week, ruled that former President Trump, cannot appear on the Colorado ballot on the grounds that he engaged in insurrection against the United States, which under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, bars a political candidate from appearing for federal office. Now, the Supreme Court is almost certainly going to take this issue up. This is a precedent that will be set for other states who are also trying to bar Trump from appearing on the ballot at all. And this puts the Supreme Court in a really difficult position. The court does not want to be in a position to intervene in what it sees as very political questions.
The most prominent example of them getting involved was, of course, the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, which basically handed the presidential election to then President Bush as they had to resolve a very narrow set of differences over what counted as a legitimate ballot in Florida. And in this case, the court is once again going to be asked to make a very political decision about who can run for president. The courts would much prefer that the political branches of the government make this determination, including Congress. And one legal argument they've made is that the 14th Amendment is not self-executing, but would in fact require Congress to step up and define what it means to commit insurrection against the United States.
There are multiple paths for the court to defer on this question, including the idea that the Senate has already acquitted President Trump of inciting an insurrection against the United States. But this is not an obvious position for the court to be in. They are certainly going to come out of this looking more politicized one way or the other. Either they bar the most popular and prominent Republican candidate from appearing on the ballot, which Republicans are going to say, suggest that we live in a banana republic, or they're going to say that Trump can go ahead and appear on the ballot, which will make Democrats to say, well, the court is completely politicized because the six Republican-appointed judges will always obviously going to side with the Republican presidential nominee.
A decision in this case could come quite quickly as the Colorado ballot deadline is approaching in early January and the court is going to need to weigh in here in order to set precedent for other states that are looking at doing something similar to what Colorado did.
So yet another unprecedented piece of a Trump presidential story is this case and Trump's norm, destroying political career continues to challenge the very foundations of the American Constitution. So lots to watch here. Stay tuned.
People file into the United States Supreme Court before SCOTUS handing down opinions.
It's the final countdown for the US Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court will issue the final decisions of its current term this week, and so far its rulings have been surprisingly moderate for a conservative-majority court.
On Tuesday, it rejected the so-called “independent state legislature theory," a fringe legal argument to give state legislatures broadly unchecked power over federal election rules. The same theory served as the basis of former President Donald Trump’s attempt to have states send “alternative” pro-Trump electors to the electoral college to overturn the 2020 election.
While the theory has been rejected by mainstream legal scholars, it seemed likely that the justices (three of whom were appointed by Trump) might rule in its favor. The decision, which runs contrary to the growing perception that the court is a political body, reinforces checks and balances and puts the kibosh on any repeat antics in 2024.
Other decisions: The justices ruled in favor of equal voting rights and tribal rights, and against stronger environmental protections this session. It also heard two cases over tech companies' liability for harmful content, deciding both in favor of Big Tech.
Looming decisions: Four consequential rulings are expected this week on student loan forgiveness, affirmative action in college admissions, religious workers' rights, and a case at the nexus of religion, free speech, and gay rights.Podcast: (Un)packing the Supreme Court with Yale Law's Emily Bazelon
Listen: The Supreme Court, one of the three branches of government that makes up this country's democratic system of checks and balances, doesn't have a military. As a result, when its justices make a ruling, they are counting on a strong sense of public trust to ensure their decisions are carried out. Not all countries on this planet can count on that public trust, and with popular support for the Court plummeting to record lows, some experts fear that the United States may soon be unable to as well.
So as SCOTUS gears up for what is sure to be a blockbuster June of Court rulings, a flurry of ethical questions surrounding the bench--as well as its hard-right turn under a conservative supermajority--have made the prospect of a potential Constitutional crisis more plausible than ever before. And then comes the 2024 election. On the podcast this week, Yale Law legal expert and co-host of Slate's Political Gabfest joins Ian Bremmer to discuss the Court's many headwinds ahead, as well as the specific cases slated to be decided in the coming weeks.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.- 3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023 ›
- What We’re Watching: SCOTUS mulling student debt relief, Blinken visiting Central Asia, Biden's partial TikTok ban, Petro’s post-honeymoon phase ›
- Senators want ethics rules for SCOTUS ›
- Abortion pills likely headed to Supreme Court, says NYT Mag columnist Emily Bazelon ›
- Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next? ›
- Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence - GZERO Media ›
Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence
Has the Supreme Court become too politicized? American confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. Just 25% of US adults have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the court, a low in Gallup’s 50 years of polling.
In our "Ian Explains" segment on GZERO World, Ian Bremmer looks back at the history of SCOTUS and the idea that justices are supposed to be impartial “umpires” that stay above the fray of politics.
Major rulings from the conservative supermajority, like the 2022 Dobbs decision that struck down Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion after 50 years of precedent, have many Americans arguing the court is enacting a political agenda by quickly moving the law to the right.
But if you look back at history, the idea of nonpartisan Supreme Court justices is a relatively new phenomenon. From the first ever chief justice, John Jay, to Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 nominee, Abe Fortas, plenty of judges have a history of blurring the line between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
Recent ethics scandals involving Clarence Thomas––his wife Ginni pressed lawmakers to overturn the 2020 election, and revelations he accepted undisclosed gifts from a billionaire Republican donor––have critics calling for major changes on the Supreme Court.
Only in the last half-century has the court formed its identity as a neutral referee, which makes calls for reform by either party feel politically motivated. But the truth is, the court has always been political.
Tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.