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. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses during a group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2022.
SCOTUS adopts new ethics code as public trust plummets
The US Supreme Court on Monday issued a formal code of conduct for its nine justices following allegations of serious ethics violations, mostly concerning Justice Clarence Thomas .
“For the most part these rules and principles are not new,” the court said in a statement . “The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,” it continued.
Among other things, the new rules emphasize that justices should not “participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the Justice’s office” or “reflect adversely on the Justice’s impartiality.”
Unclear enforcement: It’s still not entirely clear how these rules will be upheld, and some legal scholars suggested the move was largely an effort to address nearly historic levels of public distrust with the nation’s highest court.
“I think it's a positive sign that the justices adopted at least *some* rules today (and a sign that the Court *is* reactive to public pressure, as I think it ought to be),” tweeted Steve Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law. But he added that “even the most rigorous ethics rules aren't worth that much if there's no incentive to comply with them.”
Similarly, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement said, “This is a long-overdue step by the justices, but a code of ethics is not binding unless there is a mechanism to investigate possible violations and enforce the rules.”
Whitehouse has pushed for a bill that would require SCOTUS to adopt a binding ethics code for justices and create a process for investigating allegations of misconduct. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the legislation in July, but it has faced fierce opposition from Republicans and remains up in the air.
Israel/Palestine one of the few Middle East areas getting less stable
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Israel launched its biggest military operation in the West Bank since 2002. How will it impact Israeli-Palestinian stability?
Well, I mean, pretty badly. The problem is that Israel has no interest in reopening talks with the Palestinians on a potential two-state solution. The country has moved towards the Right on that issue, and the Palestinians don't have effective governance, for the Palestinian authority in the West Bank is increasingly weakened and in Gaza, it's really a matter of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. So, there's no movement towards talking. Instead, it's the Israelis taking more territory, building more settlements, and the Palestinians getting angrier and more desperate. And no surprise that you're going to see more military confrontation on the back of that. Having said that, it's one of the few areas where things aren't getting more stable in the Middle East, almost everywhere else, the Gulf, Iran's relations with the GCC, Qatar and the GCC, Assad getting normalized, Yemen with a ceasefire, most of the Middle East actually looks more stable.
Is Bolsonaro's political career over?
Well, they say he can't run, the judiciary has said, now he can't, he's out of politics till 2030. I mean, you know, if you look at the United States, he'd still have a couple of decades going, right? You look at Biden and Trump, you just never retire if you're an American political leader. You get to govern forever or at least keep running. But Bolsonaro will still be by far the most popular leader on the Right and therefore has kingmaker status. I think, you know, who he decides he'd like to see as running for the presidency in the next electoral cycle will have a significant leg up. And by the way, he increasingly talks about his wife in that role. So, I mean, keep it in the family. Why not?
Okay, with student loan forgiveness struck down, does it hurt Biden's reelection efforts?
Yeah, I think it does, on balance. I mean, the fact that the executive increasingly is showing that it is on the back foot vis-à-vis not just a legislature that's very polarized, though they have had some wins there, but also a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court, and that that has struck down a number of issues that is hurting them, I think that does matter. I think a promise to forgive student loans and not being able to get that done quickly or as big is a promise that Biden, you know, he can say, I'm still working for you, but if he can't get it done, people aren't benefiting. On affirmative action, it's more in between. I mean, then it depends on how the question is phrased, whether or not it's actually popular, unpopular. On balance, I would say striking it down as more with the population as opposed to the abortion issue, where clearly the population is on the side of Roe and against today's Supreme Court. So still very, very polarized, the US. Not surprised, that's sort of the theme of the day. I hope everyone is well and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Israel launches new operation in Jenin ›
- The latest from Israel and Gaza ›
- Bolsonaro gets benched ›
- Bolsonaro goes on trial ›
- Supreme Court rejects Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan ›
- 3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023 ›
- Is the Middle East becoming the "new Europe”? - GZERO Media ›
- Hamas attacks in Israel ignite war - GZERO Media ›
A voter exits a polling station in Selma, Alabama.
SCOTUS backs Voting Rights Act
In a surprising decision on Thursday, the US Supreme Court
ruled
in favor of voting rights advocates, deciding — in a 5-to-4 vote — that Alabama has carved up the congressional map to dilute the power of Black voters.
What’s this case about? After conducting the census in 2020, the deep-red state left only one out of seven districts majority Black despite the fact that Black voters make up 27% of the vote statewide.
A lower appeals court had previously ruled against Alabama, saying the map needed to be redrawn to be more favorable to Black residents. SCOTUS, for its part, last year put its decision on hold, meaning that the US midterm elections were held according to this now-defunct gerrymandered map.
Indeed, the outcome — in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, two conservatives, sided with the court’s three liberal justices — surprised many who feared that the majority-conservative court might back Republican-dominated states trying to strip back the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.
Still, in handing down his decision, Roberts wrote that there were remaining concerns that the original law in question “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States.” But for now, it sets a precedent for other states trying to pull similar tricks.
Want to learn more? Tune in here to Ian Bremmer’s interview with Yale Law School Senior Research Fellow Emily Bazelon on the latest episode of GZERO World. Bazelon, the host of Slate’s Political Gabfest podcast, unpacks some of the big cases argued before the court this term.
3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023
As the 2023-2023 Supreme Court session comes to a close, a flurry of major decisions are expected by the end of the month on the EPA, affirmative action, and student loan forgiveness. Emily Bazelon, Yale Law School Senior Research Fellow and host of Slate’s Political Gabfest podcast, stopped by GZERO World with Ian Bremmer to discuss some of the big cases argued before the court this term.
SCOTUS already issued a ruling in Sackett v. EPA, limiting the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect US wetlands and waterways. It’s the second ruling in a year where the justices significantly rolled back the federal government’s authority to regulate the environment.
“Millions of acres that have been regulated up till now won't be anymore,” Bazelon says, “And when you think about the record of the Clean Water Act for preserving and cleaning Americans’ waterways and rivers, now the EPA has a lot less reach to do that.
There are also two important cases in higher education––affirmative action and President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. Bazelon thinks that SCOTUS is ready to end race-based affirmative action in the US based on justices’ questioning in oral arguments. How the court will rule in the student loans case, however, is trickier to predict because loan forgiveness is somewhat tied to national emergency declaration for COVID, which ended in May.
For more on the Supreme Court and what to expect from anticipated rulings this year, tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer . Check local listings.
- 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 ›
- Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next? ›
- Abortion pills likely headed to Supreme Court, says NYT Mag columnist Emily Bazelon ›
- Podcast: (Un)packing the Supreme Court with Yale Law's Emily Bazelon - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence - GZERO Media ›
Parsing Donald Trump's indictment
Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, stopped by GZERO World to discuss three big legal stories in the news: the charges facing former US President Donald Trump, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's gifts from a billionaire Republican donor, and the recent classified documents leak.
According to Bharara, the charges leveled against the Trump Organization and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg, could establish a precedent for justice and the rule of law, with significant consequences for American democracy in the future. Bharara ranked the severity of the three other potential charges that could be brought against former President Trump, with the conduct relating to the January 6th riot "being the most severe."
Though this is not the first US president to be charged with a crime, Trump's plans to run for president in 2024 while fighting criminal charges could have wide-ranging implications for the future of democracy.
"There are people who are not allies of Trump, who I think are responsibly raising the question, "What is the level of seriousness of a crime on the part of a former president that justifies bringing it?" Bharara tells Ian Bremmer, "And they're really great arguments and I struggle with this."
- Trump's indictment is problematic ›
- Trump indicted ›
- Podcast: Trumped up charges? The law & politics of investigating a president's crimes ›
- Bharara: Clarence Thomas' donor trips may not be illegal, but not a good look ›
- US intel leak shows rising risk of NATO-Russia conflict ›
- Why you should care about the legal case against the Trump Organization - GZERO Media ›
- Trump's uncertain future amid new indictments - GZERO Media ›
- Trump indicted (again) - GZERO Media ›
US President Joe Biden delivers a speech in Warsaw, Poland on February 21, 2023.
What We’re Watching: Fiery rhetoric and a Ukraine “peace plan,” Israel’s economy v. judicial reforms, SCOTUS social media cases
Dueling speeches on Ukraine
A lot of players (and potential players) in the war on Ukraine have used the looming one-year anniversary of the invasion to position themselves for the months ahead. On Monday, President Vladimir Putin used his annual state of the nation address to insist that Russia would continue to fight a war he blames on Western aggression, and he announced that Russia would suspend participation in the New START nuclear arms control treaty , which binds Russia and the United States to limit their strategic nuclear stockpiles and to share information and access to weapons facilities. (Note: Inspections have already been suspended for more than a year, and Russia is in no position to finance a new arms race.) President Joe Biden, meanwhile, followed up his surprise visit with Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv by meeting in Warsaw with Polish President Andrzej Duda and asserting during a speech that “Appetites of the autocrat cannot be appeased. They must be opposed. Autocrats only understand one word: no, no, no .” In listing what he called Russia’s “atrocities,” he said its forces have “targeted civilians with death and destruction; used rape as a weapon of war… stolen Ukrainian children in an attempt to steal Ukraine's future, bombed train stations, maternity hospitals, schools and orphanages.” Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to make news on Friday with a speech of his own in which he’ll lay out the specifics of a peace plan which, given the distance between the Russian and Ukrainian positions, has virtually no chance of success. The war grinds on.
Israel’s shekel drops amid judicial shakeup
A day after the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passed the first stage of a bill reforming the judicial system, Israel’s currency, the shekel, dropped 2% against the greenback – the lowest value against the US dollar since 2020. Making matters worse, depreciation of the currency comes as the country is already grappling with sky-high inflation, with the central bank recently raising interest rates for the eighth time in less than a year. For weeks, Israeli bankers and business leaders have warned that Netanyahu government’s proposed changes to the judiciary, which include stripping the power of the High Court to override government legislation, would make the country less attractive for direct foreign investment. Indeed, HSBC – the world’s fourth largest bank – recently sent a letter to investors saying that the proposed reforms would harm both foreign investment and capital markets in Israel. This comes as a new poll found that 17% of Israelis are thinking about taking their savings out of Israel. Netanyahu and his right-wing cabinet say they aren’t backing down, but will that change if Israel’s economy continues to suffer and protesters continue to shout?
SCOTUS appears hesitant to crack down on social platforms
On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court began considering whether social platforms can be held responsible for harmful content promoted by their algorithms in Gonzalez v. Google, one of two cases the justices are hearing this week that may affect how social media platforms moderate content. But the justices made clear that they are unlikely to issue a sweeping decision limiting protections for YouTube, a Google subsidiary, any time soon, indicating that drawing the line on regulation is a slippery slope that should be considered by Congress. Some quick background: This case was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old exchange student killed in an ISIS attack in November 2015 in Paris that also targeted the Bataclan theater. They argue that YouTube used data it collected on its users to push ISIS-related content to interested parties. At the crux of the legal battle is whether algorithms, which affect almost every online interaction, are legally protected under Section 230, a 1996 provision that says interactive service providers are not legally considered publishers of information posted by users on their sites. Both Republicans and Democrats have criticized the provision for different reasons, but efforts to revise it have stalled in Congress. Google, for its part, argues that it is legally absolved from content promoted on its platforms as it is not a publisher. The debate continues Wednesday when the Supreme Court will hear another case, Twitter v. Taamneh, looking at whether social platforms can be liable for aiding and abetting acts of international terrorism.
Are US state courts the new battleground?
With Midterm Matters, we are counting down to the US midterm elections on Nov. 8 by separating the signal from the noise on election-related news.
The perception that the US Supreme Court is a partisan institution has increased in recent years. Just 25% of Americans now say that they have confidence in the court, down from an average of 47% between 1973 and 2006, according to Gallup . Confidence in the court has even waned among Republicans, with less than 40% of GOP voters now expressing confidence in the court, compared to 53% in 2020.
Views on court bias and whether it plays an outsized role in politics reached fever-pitch for many this summer with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a move disapproved by 57% of Americans.
Noise: The role of the Supreme Court in US political life has been a big focus leading up to midterm elections, with many Democrats campaigning against the court itself, including President Joe Biden, who recently said, “The Supreme Court and the MAGA Republicans don’t have a clue about the power of women in this country. And they’re soon to find out.”
Signal: The US Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in the system of governance in America, but many of today’s major political battles are taking place at the state level. Consider that the US Supreme Court recently passed on several hot-button issues – including abortion, gun laws, and voting rights – to be arbitrated by the states. Given the court’s conservative bent, this judicial approach will likely persevere for years to come.
While Republicans seem to have understood this dynamic for some time, Democrats have caught up with the trend in recent years. In the 2019-2020 election cycle, a collective $97 million was spent on state court races nationwide. This cycle, parties are investing heavily in partisan judicial races in Ohio, Illinois, and North Carolina.
Looking ahead: With an increased number of election deniers on Republican ballots, debates over the nature of American democracy itself will gain steam over the next few years – and those battles will be waged in state courts. Prepare to see a lot more money enter state judicial races.
Biden warns American democracy is at risk
President Joe Biden took to the airwaves Wednesday night to appeal to American voters ahead of the Nov. 8 midterm elections. He blamed former President Donald Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 election being stolen and called out the violent attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul.
“We must with one overwhelming unified voice speak as a country and say there’s no place for voter intimidation or political violence in America,” Biden said.
Since 2020, there have been numerous legal challenges and recounts that tested the election results. “There’s no election in our history that we can be more certain of its results. Every legal challenge that could have been brought was brought. Every recount that could have been undertaken was undertaken. Every recount confirmed the results,” Biden said .
But he added that Republicans are threatening the sanctity of this year’s results through voter intimidation and denialism, noting how many GOP candidates are refusing to say whether they’ll accept the results if they lose. He asked Americans to help preserve democracy by voting.
“We’ll have our differences,” Biden said. “But there’s something else at stake, democracy itself.”
In response to the speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted that the president was “desperate to change the subject from inflation, crime, and open borders.”
“Now he’s claiming that democracy only works if his party wins. … Americans aren’t buying it,” McConnell added.
We'll find out exactly what Americans think after next Tuesday.
Interpreting SCOTUS: guns, abortion, history, tradition & constitutional law
The day before the US Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion, it affirmed the right to carry guns.
Why?
New York Times columnist Emily Bazelon explains that the justices think that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment is individual and rooted in the nation's history and tradition, while abortion is neither.
The thing is, she tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, "the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that they claim is rooted in the nation's history and tradition is actually correct."
At the end of the day, Bazelon says that abortion decisions today depend "on what you think of the idea that abortion is fundamental to women's liberty and equality" — a hard sell for what she calls a "maximalist" conservative majority on the court.