Trending Now
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 }}
A group of migrants sit as they wait to be transported for processing on the day the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral arguments on Texas' motion to lift a block on its SB4 immigration law that would allow state officials to arrest migrants suspected of being in the country illegally, in El Paso, Texas, U.S. March 20, 2024 .
Supreme Court hands Trump a win, with caveats, and ACLU files new suit
In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could continue deporting suspected Venezuelan gang members to a Salvadoran prison using the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, overturning a lower-court judge’s decision to temporarily halt the flights.
“A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” US President Donald Trumpposted on Truth Social, celebrating the decision on Monday.
Not so fast. As part of the ruling, the Supreme Court stated that detainees are entitled to receive notice of their deportations and can challenge any decisions before a judge ahead of any removals, a privilege that the first set of deportees weren’t afforded. It comes after the White House started removing these alleged gang members, many of whom have no criminal record, last month. The executive branch even appeared to defy a judge’s order to turn around one of the planes. The American Civil Liberties Union duly asked a New York judge on Tuesday to halt the removals of two migrants who are being detained in the Empire State.
“The critical point is that the Supreme Court said individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. That is a huge victory,”
ACLU attorney Lee Gelerntsaid of the ruling.Out of left field. From requesting more funds for border patrol to invoking old laws, Trump has explored several avenues to secure the border and remove migrants. That’s unlikely to stop anytime soon, as he now explores a $998 daily charge for migrants who shun deportation orders.
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a joint statement to the media in Baghdad, Iraq April 22, 2024.
Hard Numbers: Erdoğan cannot bank on change, US asks EU to double down on sanctions, SCOTUS mifepristone ruling may not be final word, Chile’s giant camera, Menendez and his love of steak
5: Turkey’s Constitutional Court has ruled that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan lacks the authority to fire the country’s central bank governor, a move he’s madefive times in the past five years. It’s a remarkable rebuke for a leader who is battling 75% annual inflation and has repeatedly compromised the independence of Turkey’s leading institutions.
50 billion: According to a leaked document, the US intends to organize a$50 billion loan for Ukraine that’s repaid by profits from frozen Russian assets – but only if the EU agrees to indefinitely extend sanctions against Moscow. Washington wants to avoid accepting full responsibility for the loan if the EU lifts sanctions before the end of the war.
60: The US Supreme Court must rule by the end of the court term in late June or early July on continued legal access to the drug mifepristone, which is used inmore than 60% of all US abortions. But even if they strike down the current challenge to mifepristone, the justices could leave an opening for Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho, each of which has a Republican attorney general, to try to quickly revive the challenge to abortion pills.
3.2: Chile is set to install the largest digital camera ever built for optical astronomy, with a resolution above3.2 gigapixels, in the Atacama Desert. The camera will weigh nearly three tons and is designed to help scientists understand the nature of dark energy and dark matter in the universe.
250: A lawyer representing Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) told a judge presiding over Menendez’s trial on corruption charges, that his client dines at Washington’s famed Morton’s Steakhouse250 nights a year. That may not suggest Menendez is corrupt, but it certainly made this newsletter team feel poor – and a little bit hungrier.
The Supreme Court tackles homeless right to sleep outside
Is sleeping like breathing? Do Americans have a Constitutional right to sleep? In April, Supreme Court justices heard a case involving homeless encampments and whether cities that don’t provide shelter space can arrest or fine people for sleeping outside. At oral arguments, they asked philosophical questions about the idea of sleeping and whether or not providing space to sleep qualifies as “cruel and unusual” punishment under the 8th Amendment of the Constitution.
Legal expert Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to unpack some of the biggest cases before the Supreme Court this year. Former President Trump’s legal woes are front and center in the news, but many other major issues are at stake during this court term, including homelessness, gun rights, free speech on social media, and the power of federal agencies to interpret laws.
One case in front of the Court this year that isn’t generating a lot of headlines but will have a big impact on the daily lives of Americans involves the landmark 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defence Council decision that provides the legal bases for government agencies like the EPA, SEC, and FDA to interpret laws how they see fit if they are ambiguous. At oral arguments, the Court’s conservative majority seemed skeptical of allowing the Chevron ruling as it stands to remain in place, which will fundamentally change the way the federal government operates.
“One way to think about these agencies is that they keep us safe. They make sure the water is clean and that the air is clean,” Bazelon explains. “Another way to think about them is they're intruding on corporate profits and taking up too much power.”
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
Supreme Court will rule on abortion rights once again. What’s at stake now?
“The [abortion pill case] affects women across the country, it’s not state by state,” Bazelon stresses, “It’s the FDA’s authority to allow pills to be shipped everywhere and other rules that have made abortion pills more accessible for women in blue as well as red states.”
A group of doctors is challenging the Food and Drug Administration's authority to allow doctors to prescribe abortion pills without an in-person visit with a patient and for those pills to be sent through the mail. Bazelon explains that this group of plaintiffs is unusual in that they haven’t yet experienced direct harm from the FDA’s ruling, which you usually need to prove has happened before a case makes it all the way up to the highest court in the land. Four female justices are also on the bench this year, a historic high-water mark. Could that make a difference in the way justices rule on either case?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- Podcast: (Un)packing the Supreme Court with Yale Law's Emily Bazelon ›
- Who polices the Supreme Court? ›
- Abortion in Florida: banned and on the ballot ›
- The Graphic Truth: Abortion laws around the world ›
- Why do Americans get so worked up about abortion? ›
- Should we rethink the global aging crisis? - GZERO Media ›
The US Supreme Court’s “upside-down” logic in Trump immunity case
2024 is certain to be a historic year for the US Supreme Court: In June, SCOTUS will issue rulings on former president Donald Trump’s immunity claims in charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith involving Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to unpack the legal arguments at the heart of the case and what caught SCOTUS experts off-guard during oral arguments.
Like in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that ultimately handed the election win to George W. Bush, Court watchers had expected the justices to issue a narrow ruling in the Trump case. But during arguments, the conservative justices asked questions that seemed more interested in raising hypotheticals about whether limiting the scope of immunity might restrict a president’s power too much. With Trump again on the ballot in 2024, the stakes could not be higher. Will the justices make a limited ruling or wade into the politics of the US presidential election with, as Justice Gorsuch put it, “a ruling for the ages”?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- The case against Trump's big lie ›
- Trump's Jan. 6 trial could now hurt his re-election bid ›
- Is Trump immune? SCOTUS dives into uncharted waters ›
- Trump's immunity claim: US democracy in crisis ›
- Supreme Court divided over Trump’s absolute immunity claims ›
- How the Supreme Court immunity ruling changes presidential power - GZERO Media ›
The major Supreme Court decisions to watch for in June
In June, the US Supreme Court will begin issuing decisions on cases involving everything from reproductive rights to gun ownership to homeless encampments to former president Donald Trump’s criminal cases. Yale Law School Lecturer and staff writer at the New York Times Magazine Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to unpack some of the biggest cases on the docket this year and what’s at stake in some of the major decisions expected to come down next month.
This year’s SCOTUS term comes at a time when approval for the Court is at an all-time low. As of September of 2023, a record 58% of Americans disapproved of how the Court handles its job. That follows multiple ethics scandals involving Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and a string of conservative decisions, including the 2022 Dobbs decision striking down the right to abortion, increasingly out of step with public opinion. With the Court wading into the 2024 election and former President Trump’s immunity claims, it risks being seen by the public as even more partisan and politicized.
“As an American, I want to have a good faith belief in the justices’ approach,” Bazelon says, “After a certain number of cases come out in particular ways, you start to feel like cynicism is realism about the Court."
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
The US Supreme Court, less trusted than ever, votes on major cases in June: Emily Bazelon on what to expect
Listen: It’s a big year for the US Supreme Court. In June, SCOTUS will begin issuing decisions on a number of politically charged cases, including abortion rights, gun control, and whether former president Donald Trump will stand trial for criminal cases, just as the 2024 election season shifts into high gear. Yale Law School lecturer and staff writer at The New York Times Magazine Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World Podcast to unpack some of the biggest cases on the docket this year, what's at stake, and what expected rulings will mean for the future of our democracy. This year’s term comes as public approval for SCOTUS hit a record low. The Court is facing accusations of politicization following ethics scandals involving Justice Clarence Thomas and a string of decisions from the conservative majority that advanced Republican policy goals, such as striking down the federal right to abortion. The Court was designed to remain above the political fray, but with the stakes so high in a presidential election year, does it risk being seen as just another partisan institution?
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Ian Explains: Does it matter if Americans don't trust the Supreme Court?
Public approval for the US Supreme Court is at an all-time low. But how much does that matter really? On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer breaks down why voters believe the Court has become more partisan and politically motivated in recent years and whether public perception makes any difference in how it operates.
According to Gallup polling, SCOTUS has had a strong net approval rating, much higher than the President and Congress, for most of the last 25 years. But as of September 2023, 58% of Americans disapproved of the Supreme Court, a record high. The Court’s credibility has come under fire following ethics scandals involving Justice Clarence Thomas and a string of 6-3 conservative majority opinions, like the June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe v. Wade, increasingly out of step with public opinion.
It’s a class question of separation of powers: The justices aren’t elected, and the judicial branch of government isn’t designed to respond to popular will. But if SCOTUS falls out of step with voters completely, it risks losing the very thing that gives it legitimacy: public faith.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- SCOTUS adopts new ethics code as public trust plummets ›
- Who cares if the Supreme Court justices like each other? ›
- Supreme Court divided over Trump’s absolute immunity claims ›
- US Supreme Court ends affirmative action in college admissions ›
- Why Clarence Thomas has eroded trust in the US Supreme Court ›
- The major Supreme Court decisions to watch for in June - GZERO Media ›
- US election disinformation: How myths like non-citizen voting erode public trust - GZERO Media ›