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 Donald Trump speaks with Judge Amy Coney Barrett after she was sworn in as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S. October 26, 2020.
Supreme Court divided over Trump’s absolute immunity claims
Should a former president be held accountable for crimes committed while in office? That was the basic, yet incredibly weighty, question before the Supreme Court on Thursday when it began hearing oral arguments in a case related to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump, who doesn’t want to face trial in the federal Jan. 6 case against him before his expected rematch with President Joe Biden on Election Day, has declared that presidents should have absolute immunity. He’s effectively argued that presidents should be above the law.
What happened? Some of the conservative justices (three of whom were appointed by Trump) expressed concern that allowing former presidents to be criminally prosecuted could present a burden to future commanders-in-chief. They seemed skeptical of Trump’s sweeping claims but appeared open to the idea that presidents should have immunity for some actions. There was a great deal of focus on whether a distinction should be established between official acts and private behavior.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, emphasized that the court was “writing a rule for the ages.” But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, agreed with the notion that the ex-president’s legal team was pushing a “radical” idea on presidential immunity.
Meanwhile, liberal justices worried that if the court ruled in Trump’s favor, it could open the door for future presidents to commit crimes. “If there’s no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?” asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
TLDR: The court might rule that presidents should be granted some, but not absolute, immunity from criminal prosecution. This means the case could be kicked back down to the lower courts.
What’s next? Trump’s Jan. 6 trial was postponed to await the court’s ruling, which could come anytime between now and the end of June. Whether that trial occurs before voters go to the polls in November will depend on the timing and nature of the court’s final ruling.
Former US President Donald Trump waits for the start of proceedings in Manhattan criminal court, Tuesday, April 23, 2024, in New York.
Is Trump immune? SCOTUS dives into uncharted waters
The US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results (spoiler alert: He lost to Joe Biden).
Trump has effectively argued that he should be off the hook for anything he did while in office. The ex-president faces four felony counts in relation to his push to undo Biden’s victory, including conspiracy to defraud the US and obstruction of an official proceeding.
What’s at stake? A lot! This is novel territory for the Supreme Court, given Trump is the first former president in US history to face criminal charges.
The court’s ruling will have major implications for the rule of law in the US and the office of the presidency, with the potential to deal a major blow to the system of checks and balances designed to restrain each branch of the government. That said, legal experts are skeptical the court will fully concur with Trump’s broad assessment that presidents have absolute immunity. Lower courts have already rejected Trump’s immunity claims.
The high court’s decision could also impact whether Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, stands trial in the federal Jan. 6 case in Washington before Election Day – something Trump is eager to avoid. A trial date was originally scheduled for March 4 but was delayed to await the Supreme Court ruling, which is expected to be released by July.
FILE PHOTO: Parts of a ghost gun kit are on display at an event held by U.S. President Joe Biden to announce measures to fight ghost gun crime, at the White House in Washington U.S., April 11, 2022.
The Supreme Court takes aim at “ghost guns”
The US Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to crack down on untraceable “ghost guns.”
What are “ghost guns”? Basically, privately manufactured kits that give customers all the individual parts they need to build a firearm themselves, like a deadly version of IKEA.
Before the Biden administration’s new regulations, customers did not need to pass background checks to buy these kits, and law enforcement struggled to trace the guns when they were used in crimes. Unsurprisingly, a lot of criminals bought these kits. In 2020, law enforcement agencies recovered 19,344 ghost guns from crime scenes, up from just 1,758 in 2016.
What’s the argument? The White House’s regulations don’t ban the sale of gun kits but require manufacturers to put serial numbers on components and conduct background checks. Manufacturers and Second Amendment activists say the government is overstepping its powers in regulating the kits like actual firearms.
What’s the outlook? The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors expansive Second Amendment rights. That said, two conservatives – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett – joined the liberals to let the White House allow the regulations to take effect temporarily last August. Their votes will be key, with a decision expected after the November election.Signs welcoming Indiana Fever's new player Caitlin Clark, at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis.
Basketball double whammy: Gender pay gap and betting scandals
It’s been a big week for professional basketball leagues catching heat. Fans were outraged to learn that college basketball legend and all-time NCAA top-scorer and top WNBA draft pick Caitlin Clarkwill earn a meager $338,056 over four years with the Indiana Fever.
That means, Clark’s earnings will be less than 1% of the 2023 NBA top draft pick, Victor Wembanyama’s $55 million deal. It’s even lower – much lower– than some NBA mascots.
Sure, Clark is set to make $3 million in ad deals, but the gender pay gap point remains, particularly as the league continues to grow. The WNBA draws fewer attendees, television viewers, and broadcast rights revenue, which means its players have a weaker collective bargaining agreement. But with a star like Clark – who is already helping set WNBA viewership records – that balance may begin to shift thanks to a one-woman rising tide that will lift other boats.
But Clark’s pay wasn’t the only pro basketball scandal. This week, Toronto Raptors forward Jontay Porterwas banned from the NBA after an investigation found him guilty of colluding with sports bettors. He was, according to the ruling, providing information to them and betting on games, including against his own team, and “limiting his own participation in one or more games for betting purposes.”
While Clark’s contract called attention to gender-based pay discrepancies, Porter’s ouster has raised questions about player’s involvement in betting scandals (and sponsorship deals with gaming outlets) – something that has become more common following the 2018 US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down federal laws against betting on professional sports. With a bigger pool of bettors offering more opportunities for such insider betting scandals, could it be time for the legal ban – or at least limits – to rebound?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.
What Florida's abortion rulings mean for the 2024 US election
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
This is what we are watching in US Politics this week: Abortion.
Abortion is the big story in US politics this week with the Florida state Supreme Court ruling that a ballot initiative that would protect access to abortion up until fetal viability will be on the ballot in abortion in Florida this year. Democrats are excited about this ruling because it was starting to look like Florida was increasingly out of reach for them.
Republicans now out register Democratic voters in the state by over 800,000 registered voters, which is a flip from a decade ago when Democrats outnumbered Republicans by about 500,000 registered voters. Florida is looking like more and more of a red state with a massive 20 point victory for Republican Governor Ron DeSantis in the 2022 midterm elections. That's what was making Democrats feel like it wouldn't be a very competitive state in this presidential cycle.
However, with abortion on the ballot, they now see an opportunity for outside groups to come in and spend a bunch of money who otherwise wouldn't have sent money there, forcing Republicans to respond by potentially wasting money there. The state is probably a little bit too red for it to truly be competitive for President Biden in this election cycle.
But this abortion referendum story is going to play out across the country. Democratic activists have the opportunity to get abortion on the ballot in two critical swing states of Nevada and Arizona. But it's unlikely they would show up in the other swing states of Wisconsin or Michigan, because Wisconsin had a recent state Supreme Court decision about it. And Michigan had an abortion referendum in 2022. That doesn't mean they can't find other ways to make this election about access to abortion, which has been a very positive issue for Democrats.
There have been seven state referendums since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. And in each of those, the electorate shifted significantly to the left from what they did in the 2020 results, even in deep red states like Kansas and Kentucky. So this is going to be an important issue to keep watching throughout the election. And could be one of the wild cards that helps Joe Biden overcome the bad polls that he's been experiencing in recent weeks.
Pro-choice activists attend a demonstration at the Supreme Court as it hears oral arguments in a case that could end access to the medication abortion, Washington, DC, March 26, 2024.
SCOTUS vs. abortion pill
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a case over whether to limit access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion.
It’s the first abortion case before the high court since its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. And it has major potential ramifications: 63% of all US abortions last year used mifepristone.
Justices are considering whether to roll back FDA rule changes that expanded the ways the drug could be prescribed and dispensed, including via telehealth and by mail. The plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors, contend that mifepristone is dangerous — though multiple studies found the drug both effective and safe.
What’s at stake? The court’s decision is expected in June. If it rules in favor of restricting access to the drug, it could impact availability nationwide, even in states where abortion remains legal.
And any such decision would likely make abortion even more of a key issue in the 2024 presidential race. Democrats have performed well in elections where abortion has been on the ballot, so siding with the plaintiffs could present a challenge to former President Donald Trump. He is anti-abortion and appointed three of the six conservatives on the court. That said, even they appeared skeptical of the arguments presented by the plaintiffs, and concerned over the implications of challenging the FDA’s authority to approve medications.
A man walks his dog on the Mexican side of a section of the U.S.-Mexican Border wall on Wednesday morning, September 7th, 2022, as seen from Cameron County, Texas
Can Texas write its own border laws?
Federal courts played a game of injunction ping-pong this week with Texas’ controversial new immigration law known as SB4, which would dramatically expand the Lone Star State’s power at the border. The law would allow Texas police to detain people suspected of entering the US illegally and enable Texas judges to deport them – powers that have traditionally fallen under federal jurisdiction.
The law briefly came into effect Tuesday after the US Supreme Court declined an emergency application from the Biden administration arguing it violated federal authority. Within hours, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated an injunction on enforcement, and on Wednesday that court heard arguments on the constitutionality of the law – one step in a process that could take the case back to SCOTUS.
The key question is whether states may write their own immigration laws even if they conflict with existing federal law, according to Eurasia Group analyst Noah Daponte-Smith.
“If the court ruled the entire law constitutional, that may open the door to conflictual federal and state immigration policies and would raise big questions about enforcement,” he says.
And Texas is finding it takes two to tango in foreign relations. Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs made clear it does not recognize Texas’ own border policy and will not accept any attempted repatriations from state authorities.