TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew takes questions from Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 23, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

TikTok and its parent company argued Thursday in a federal court in the District of Columbia that the recently enacted law forcing a nationwide ban or sale of the popular platform violates the First Amendment.

TikTok Inc., which operates the video-sharing service in the United States, and its parent company, ByteDance Ltd., which was founded by a Chinese national, filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit calling the law President Joe Biden signed in April an unprecedented restriction on the constitutional right to free speech.

“Never before has Congress expressly singled out and shut down a specific speech forum,” the brief reads. “Never before has Congress silenced so much speech in a single act. “

Upholding such an “extraordinary speech restriction” would require the court to undertake “exacting scrutiny” of Congress’ action, but Congress provided only a hypothetical national security argument to advance the bill, the companies said.

“Congress gave this Court almost nothing to review,” the brief continues. “Congress enacted no findings, so there is no way to know why majorities of the House and Senate decided to ban TikTok.”

Many individual lawmakers who supported the law raised national security concerns, saying ByteDance’s relationship with the Chinese government meant the country’s Communist Party leaders could demand access to TikTok users’ private data.

They also said the platform, which the company says has 170 million users in the U.S., could be used to spread propaganda.

But under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, labeling speech as foreign propaganda does not allow the government to overlook First Amendment protections, TikTok said in its brief.

Speculation about how the app “might” or “could” be used, rather than any concrete examples of misconduct, do not clear the high bar required to restrict speech, the companies added.

“A claim of national security does not override the Constitution,” the companies wrote Thursday.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which is defending the law, highlighted the intelligence community’s national security concerns with TikTok and said the law was consistent with the First Amendment.

“This legislation addresses critical national security concerns in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment and other constitutional limitations,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement to States Newsroom. “We look forward to defending the legislation in court.

“Alongside others in our intelligence community and in Congress, the Justice Department has consistently warned about the threat of autocratic nations that can weaponize technology – such as the apps and software that run on our phones – to use against us. This threat is compounded when those autocratic nations require companies under their control to turn over sensitive data to the government in secret.”

Response to lawmakers

The brief said Congress had not included any official findings of harm from TikTok, but several individual members raised specific concerns about the kind of speech found on the platform.

The companies said Thursday those specific complaints bolstered the argument that TikTok is being denied free speech protections.

The brief cited several lawmaker statements:

• U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican, U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who is ranking member on the House Select Committee on China, and former Rep. Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican who chaired the panel, said the platform’s algorithm fed an overwhelming share of pro-Palestinian content over videos that favor Israel.

• Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, said the platform “exposes children to harmful content.”

• Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said the law would “make TikTok safer for our children and national security.”

• Nebraska Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts noted the popularity of the hashtag #StandwithKashmir, which protests a policy of India, a geopolitical rival of China.

“Legislators’ perception of the content reflected on TikTok was misinformed,” the companies said. “But well-founded or not, governmental policing of content differences is antithetical to the First Amendment.”

Oral arguments in September

Both chambers of Congress passed the law with bipartisan votes as part of a package that included aid to Israel and Ukraine. Biden signed the measure April 24.

TikTok pledged to sue and filed its legal challenge last month.

Tuesday’s brief expands on the company’s arguments. The government’s response is due July 26 and oral arguments are scheduled for Sept. 16.

Divestment unworkable, TikTok says

TikTok and ByteDance said Thursday the provision in the bill to avoid a ban by divesting the service to a company without ties to China is unworkable, especially within the nine-month timeline required by the law.

Such a move would be technically complex, requiring years of engineering work, the companies said. It would also isolate the U.S. user base from the rest of the world, limiting revenue from advertisements.

And even if it were feasible from a technical or business standpoint, selling the platform would likely be rejected by the Chinese government, which has the authority to block exportation of technology developed in the country, the companies said.

The post Congress silenced free speech in TikTok law, platform tells federal court appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - MAY 24: In this photo illustration, marijuana joints and buds, also known as 'flower', are viewed on May 24, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. A new study by Carnegie Mellon University has found that marijuana consumption has overtaken alcohol as more Americans now use marijuana on a daily or near-daily basis than those who drink alcohol at a similar frequency. (Photo Illustration by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Nearly three weeks after the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration proposed loosening a federal prohibition on marijuana, the next phases of policy fights over the drug’s status are starting to take shape.

Public comments, which the DEA is accepting on the proposal until mid-July, will likely include an analysis of the economic impact of more lenient federal rules.

Administrative law hearings, a venue for opponents to challenge executive branch decisions, will likely follow, with marijuana’s potential for abuse a possible issue.

Congress, meanwhile, could act on multiple related issues, including banking access for state-legal marijuana businesses and proposals to help communities harmed by the decades of federal prohibition.

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon and longtime advocate for legalizing marijuana who’s retiring at the end of the year, is encouraging his colleagues to build on the administration’s action by taking up bills on those related issues.

The politics of the issue should favor action, even in the face of an upcoming campaign season that typically slows legislative action, Blumenauer said in a May 17 interview, noting the popularity of a more permissive approach to the drug.

“Congress may not do a lot between now and November, but they should,” the 14-term House member said. “Because it’s an election year, there’s no downside to being more aggressive.”

Economic impact

In a proposed rule published in the Federal Register last month, the DEA specifically asked commenters to weigh in on the economic impacts of moving the drug from Schedule I to the less-restrictive Schedule III list under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

That will likely mean the agency will consider the impact of allowing state-legal marijuana businesses to deduct business expenses from their federal taxes, Mason Tvert, a partner at Denver-based cannabis policy and public affairs firm Strategies 64, said in an interview. Under current law, no deductions are allowed.

That issue is seen by advocates, including Blumenauer and fellow Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, who chairs the tax-writing U.S. Senate Finance Committee, as paramount for the industry.

Thousands of state-legal businesses struggle to earn a profit or operate at a loss under the current system, Blumenauer said.

Potential for abuse

The DEA typically looks at three factors when assessing how strictly to regulate a drug: its medicinal value, potential for abuse relative to other drugs and ability to cause physical addiction.

A 2023 analysis by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that looked at data from states where medicinal marijuana is legal showed that “there exists some credible scientific support for the medical use of marijuana.”

That finding could lead DEA to look at other factors, Tvert said.

“The battleground that we’ll see will be around how we define potential for abuse,” he said.

Agencies split?

But the DEA proposed rule revealed a divided view among government agencies about the drug’s potential harms, Paul Armentano, the deputy director for the longtime leading advocacy group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, told States Newsroom.

The text of the proposed rule shows “a lack of consensus” among HHS, the Attorney General’s Office and the Drug Enforcement Administration, he said.

“There are several points in the DEA’s proposed rule where they express a desire to see additional evidence specific to concerns that the agency has about the potential effects of cannabis, particularly as they pertain to abuse potential and potential harms,” Armentano said.

“The HHS addresses those issues, but the DEA essentially says, ‘We’d like to see more information on it.’”

Kevin Sabat, the president and CEO of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, agreed that the DEA did not appear to agree with the HHS conclusion that medical uses exist.

The proposed rule “just brings up all these issues with the HHS’s determination and it basically invites comment on all those issues,” he said.

Administrative law hearing

Sabat’s group will also be petitioning for a DEA administrative hearing, he said. An administrative law judge could rule that the proposal should not go through or that it should be amended to remain stricter than the initial proposal described.

“We’re going to highlight the fact that, first of all, this does not have approved or accepted medical use,” he said.

Tvert said the accepted medical value question is likely not to be a major factor in an administrative law hearing. Several medical organizations and states that allow medicinal use have already endorsed its medicinal value, he said.

Instead, the focus will turn to the drug’s potential for abuse, he said.

“What will be critical is looking at cannabis relative to other substances that are currently II or III or not on the schedule, and determining whether cannabis should be on Schedule I when alcohol is not even on the schedules and ketamine is Schedule III.”

As of June 6, nearly 12,000 people had commented on the proposal in the 18 days since its publication.

While opinion polls show that most Americans favor liberalizing cannabis laws — a Pew Research Center survey in March found 57% of U.S. adults favor full legalization while only 11% say it should be entirely illegal — the public comments so far represent a full spectrum of views on the topic.

“This rule is a horrible idea, this should remain in Schedule I,” one comment read. “Marijuana is a gateway drug and ruins lives.”

“There are no negative side effects to its use,” another commenter, who favored “fully” legalizing the substance, wrote. “Its not harmful. The only harm is what the government has done to me and America. Shame on the people that continue to oppose this. Seriously shame on anyone that would stand in the way of this change.”

Congressional action?

Blumenauer authored a memo last month on “the path forward” for reform as the rescheduling process plays out.

He listed four bills for Congress to consider this year.

One, sponsored by House Democrats, would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substance Act schedule entirely and expunge prior offenses.

A bipartisan bill would make changes to the banking laws to allow state-legal businesses greater access to loans and other financial services.

Another, cosponsored with Florida Republican Brian Mast, would allow Veterans Administration health providers to discuss state-legal medicinal marijuana with veteran patients.

Blumenauer has also co-written language for appropriations bills that would prevent the Department of Justice from prosecuting marijuana businesses that are legal under state or tribal law.

“All of these things are overwhelmingly popular, they’re important, we have legislative vehicles and supporters,” he said.

Still, there may be disagreements about what to pursue next.

Recent years have seen disagreements among Democratic supporters of legalization over whether to prioritize banking or criminal justice reforms.

A banking overhaul has much greater bipartisan support, and advocates on all sides of the issue agree it’s the most likely to see congressional action.

But some who support changes to banking laws in principle object to focusing on improving the business environment without first addressing the harms they say prohibition has caused to largely non-white and disadvantaged communities.

As recently as 2021, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer described banking reform legislation as too narrow. Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, called it a “common-sense policy” but said that he favored a more comprehensive approach.

“I’ve gone around with Cory on that,” Blumenauer said. “More than anybody in Congress, I’m in favor of the major reforms, and we’ve been fighting for racial justice and equity … but (racial justice and banking reforms) are not mutually exclusive.”

In September, Booker agreed to co-sponsor the banking reform bill after winning a promise from Schumer that a separate bill to help expunge criminal records would also receive a vote. Neither measure has actually received a floor vote.

In a statement following the administration’s announcement on rescheduling, Booker praised the move, but called for further action from Congress.

That includes passing a bill he’s sponsored that would decriminalize the drug at the federal level, expunge the records of people convicted of federal marijuana crimes and direct federal funding to communities “most harmed by the failed War on Drugs,” according to a summary from Booker’s office.

“We still have a long way to go,” Booker said in the statement on rescheduling. “Thousands of people remain in prisons around the country for marijuana-related crimes. They continue to bear the devastating consequences that come with a criminal history.”

Blumenauer said Congress should act on the proposals that have widespread support from voters.

“This not low-hanging fruit, this is having them pick it up off the ground,” he said. “There is no other controversial issue that has as much bipartisan support that’s awaiting action.”

The post Easing federal marijuana rules: There’s still a long way to go appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.

FORT COLLINS, CO - APRIL 19: A portion of marijuana is seen under a magifying glass at "Abundant Healing" store April 19, 2010 in Fort Collins, Colorado. Abundent Healing is one of Colorado's many legal marijuana dispensaries, which sells marijuana to customers with a state-issued medical marijuana card. Colorado, one of 14 states to allow use of medical marijuana, has experienced an explosion in marijuana dispensaries, trade shows and related businesses in the last year as marijuana use becomes more mainstream here. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has proposed loosening the illegal status of marijuana at the federal level – but that doesn’t mean the federal government now condones recreational or medicinal use in the many states that have legalized the drug.

Moving marijuana from the government’s list of the most dangerous and least useful substances to a less serious category was a clear signal that the federal government, at least under President Joe Biden’s administration, wants to ease restrictions on a drug that’s been legal in an increasing number of states for more than a decade.

For years, the federal government has not pursued enforcement of state-legal marijuana operations, and the recent move appears to solidify that approach.

But it didn’t solve the many thorny issues that have resulted from a split between what is legal in dozens of states and what the federal government allows.

It’s unclear exactly what the rescheduling will mean. The Justice Department has not made public the text of Garland’s proposal — a DOJ spokesman declined States Newsroom’s request this week for a copy and state regulators say it has not been shared with them.

Even if the proposal were public, it would be expected to go through changes over months of rulemaking.

Here are some questions covering what is known at this early stage about what rescheduling would and would not do.

Q: Is weed legal now?

A: No.

Even in states that have legalized recreational use, the federal government would likely still consider the state system as illegal under federal law.

Other Schedule III drugs, including Tylenol with codeine and anabolic steroids, are tightly regulated and available only by prescription at pharmacies.

State-legal medicinal marijuana dispensaries do not fit that description and recreational-use dispensaries are even further from what the Food and Drug Administration requires of Schedule III drugs.

“This does not make marijuana state operations legal,” Shawn Hauser, a partner at Denver-based marijuana law firm Vicente LLP, said on a May 3 webinar. “They are not selling FDA-approved drugs and they are not licensed or meet the control requirements for Schedule III. So cannabis and state-legal dispensaries will remain in violation of federal law.”

Q: What is the difference between Schedule I and Schedule III?

A: Among the most significant is the recognition that the drug may have some medicinal value.

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration has five levels of drug classifications.

Schedule I is the most restricted level, comprising the drugs most ripe for abuse that have no medicinal value. Other drugs on the list include heroin and LSD.

Because the definition of Schedule I substances includes no medicinal use, it is illegal to even study substances on the list.

Schedule III is the strictest level that acknowledges some medicinal value, making some hopeful that research on the drug could be improved.

“Moving cannabis to Schedule III would be a big step for recognition of the medical uses of cannabis, what voters here recognized by a wide margin in 1998,” the Washington state Liquor and Cannabis Board said in a May 1 statement. “And it would say very clearly that the federal government no longer considers cannabis among the most dangerous drugs.”

Q: How are states preparing?

A: Until they have more details, state regulators cannot do much, Amanda Borup, the senior policy analyst for the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, said in an interview.

“We really have to wait and see what they release,” she said, referring to the DEA’s rulemaking.

Other states are considering what the impacts might be.

The statement from Washington’s Liquor and Cannabis Board said rescheduling would “hopefully” ease restrictions on cannabis research, while it is “possible” the move would allow state-legal businesses to take advantage of tax deductions available to other industries.

Q: Why does research matter?

A: Marijuana advocates have had trouble providing evidence of any marijuana benefits because research has been restricted, which in turn made it more difficult to show that the restrictions should be lifted.

It could also help establish industry guidelines for ancillary issues. For example, the restrictions on research contribute to a lack of data on what pesticides are safe for use in marijuana cultivation.

Q: How does this affect policy on taxes, banking and criminal justice?

A: On its own, rescheduling likely won’t address several complaints marijuana industry members and advocates have about federal prohibition.

Some are hopeful, though, that the signal from the Biden administration will spur momentum toward other changes.

Most businesses can deduct their costs from their income and pay taxes on their net income. Marijuana businesses cannot take that deduction, known as 280E, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group.

Schedule I status also makes access to the U.S. banking system difficult.

Others complain that making marijuana legal in some states has not been fair to the communities of color that saw the most active enforcement.

Rescheduling would not fix those issues on its own, but advocates are hopeful it is a sign of momentum toward full legalization.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ron Wyden of Oregon reintroduced a bill last week to de-schdule the drug altogether. The measure includes expanding the 280E tax break and several provisions meant to address social justice.

Q: Could Trump reverse this if he wins in November?

A: Probably, though there’s no indication that’s on his agenda.

It’s unclear what the status of the rescheduling will be when the next Inauguration Day arrives on Jan. 20.

If former President Donald Trump wins back the presidency and the rescheduling is still pending, he could direct the DEA and DOJ to scrap the change.

Trump has not commented on the issue.

The post Still much unknown on how marijuana policies would change in states under Biden plan appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.

BEIJING, CHINA - SEPTEMBER 22: In this photo illustration, a mobile phone can be seen displaying the logos for Chinese apps WeChat and TikTok in front of a monitor showing the flags of the United States and China on an internet page, on September 22, 2020 in Beijing, China. Both popular Chinese-owned apps are facing bans under an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump, but on Saturday, Trump said he was giving the go ahead to a deal between TikTok, Oracle, and Walmart and a judge in California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administrations WeChat ban. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

TikTok and its Chinese parent company on Tuesday challenged a recently enacted federal law banning the short-form video platform from the United States if it is not sold to a non-Chinese owner.

TikTok Inc., the U.S. company that operates the popular social media service, and ByteDance, its parent company founded by Chinese entrepreneurs, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over a law requiring ByteDance to sell its subsidiary or face a ban from U.S. app stores.

The law violates the First Amendment right to free speech, the companies wrote. The service is a free-speech platform, used by 170 million Americans monthly. While the government can dictate broadcast licenses that operate over public airwaves, it has no such authority over other platforms including newspapers and websites, they said.

“Congress has made a law curtailing massive amounts of protected speech,” the companies wrote. “The government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, dictate the ownership of newspapers, websites, online platforms, and other privately created speech forums.”

Congress passed, and President Joe Biden signed, the law last month. Many lawmakers argued that TikTok was a tool of the Chinese Communist Party.

Sale not viable, TikTok says

The law’s alternative for TikTok to avoid a U.S. ban, for ByteDance to sell the platform, is unworkable, the companies said.

The algorithm at the core of TikTok’s product, as well as the platform itself, is powered by millions of lines of code developed by thousands of engineers over years, the companies said. Transferring that design to new owners who lack the years of expertise that TikTok’s current workforce has would be impossible within the nine-month deadline stipulated in the law.

The Chinese government would also likely not allow divestiture of the algorithm. China, like the United States, can regulate what technology can be exported, they said, and would likely reject a deal to allow foreign ownership of TikTok.

TikTok as a platform is globally integrated, so even if it were possible to find a new owner and transfer ownership of the product, it would lose much of the appeal — and the related market value — of connecting with users around the world, the companies wrote.

“Divesting TikTok Inc.’s U.S. business and completely severing it from the globally integrated platform of which it is a part is not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible,” they said. “The Act will therefore have the effect of shutting down TikTok in the United States.”

The companies asked the court to declare that the law is unconstitutional, bar Attorney General Merrick Garland from enforcing it and “grant any further relief that may be appropriate.”

National security concerns

Congress included the TikTok bill in a package of high-profile spending items, including military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. President Joe Biden signed the package into law April 24.

Several China hawks in Congress have expressed concerns that the Chinese government and its ruling Communist Party can compel ByteDance to provide data from TikTok users’ devices.

They have also raised concerns that the Chinese Communist Party can manipulate content on the platform.

Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican, said last week the “overwhelming” share of pro-Palestinian content on TikTok compared to other platforms was a reason driving support for a ban among lawmakers.

In their suit, TikTok and ByteDance said the government has not presented evidence to back up concerns over data privacy or content manipulation and instead relied on hypothetical risks.

“Those speculative concerns fall far short of what is required when First Amendment rights are at stake,” they said.

Rep. John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican who chairs the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, said in a written statement posted by the committee’s X account Tuesday he was “confident that our legislation will be upheld.”

“Congress and the Executive Branch have concluded, based on both publicly available and classified information, that TikTok poses a grave risk to national security and the American people,” Moolenaar said. “It is telling that TikTok would rather spend its time, money, and effort fighting in court than solving the problem by breaking up with the Chinese Communist Party.”

The post TikTok sues to block new U.S. law banning app if it is not sold appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.

Tim Blakeley, manager of Sunset Junction medical marijuana dispensary, shows marijuana plant buds on May 11, 2010 in Los Angeles, California. (Kevork Djansezian | Getty Images)

Leading U.S. Senate Democrats reintroduced a bill Wednesday to remove marijuana from the list of federal controlled substances, following the Biden administration’s move a day earlier to significantly ease regulations on the drug.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden of Oregon and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, on Wednesday at a press conference applauded the Justice Department’s announcement it would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

But they said it didn’t solve problems, including race-based discrimination, created by federal prohibition.

Instead, they promoted a bill that would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely, while adding new federal regulations and oversight.

The bill “will help our country close the book once and for all on the awful, harmful and failed war on drugs, which all too often has been nothing more than a war on Americans of color,” Schumer said. “In short, our bill’s about individual freedom and basic fairness.”

Most Americans believe cannabis should be legalized, Schumer said.

The move announced Tuesday by the Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration will ease some of the harshest restrictions on marijuana use under Schedule I, which lists the most dangerous and easily abused drugs without any medicinal value.

Schedule III drugs, which include Tylenol with codeine and anabolic steroids, are allowed to be studied and dispensed under certain guidelines.

DOJ move not enough, Dems say

The Tuesday announcement from the Justice Department didn’t go far enough, the trio said at a Wednesday press conference, and should be seen as a potential launching pad for further reforms.

“We want to disabuse people of the notion that because the White House moved yesterday, things are at a standstill here in the United States Congress,” Wyden said. “I look at this as a chance to get new momentum for our bill, for action on Capitol Hill.”

Fifteen other Senate Democrats have cosponsored the bill.

Communities of color and small businesses

The senators said that federal prohibition, even as many states have legalized medicinal or recreational use, has disproportionately harmed communities of color.

“I think it’s a great step that the Biden administration is moving in the direction of not making this a Schedule I drug — the absurdity of that is outrageous,” Booker said. “But honestly, the bill that we are reintroducing today is the solution to this long, agonizing, hypocritical, frankly unequally enforced set of bad laws.”

Federal prohibition has also blocked tax breaks for marijuana-related businesses, including small independent enterprises that Wyden, who chairs the tax-writing Finance Committee, said he is eager to help.

Wyden said he was excited about a provision in the bill to allow state-legal marijuana business access to a common tax break that allows small businesses to deduct business expenses.

With marijuana classified as a Schedule I substance, the federal tax break has not been allowed even for businesses that operate with a state license. Wyden said that small independent businesses “really get clobbered” under the current system. He indicated that his committee would look at more ways to reduce the tax burden for “small mom-and-pop” businesses.

The senators did not answer a question about if the legalization bill should be considered in tandem with a separate bill to allow state-legal marijuana businesses greater access to the banking system. Many banks refuse to do business with marijuana businesses out of fear they will be sanctioned as an accessory to drug trafficking.

New regulatory framework

The bill would automatically expunge federal marijuana-related convictions, direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development to create a program to help people who lost access to housing benefits because of marijuana convictions and establish a Cannabis Justice Office within the U.S. Justice Department.

It would direct funding to an Opportunity Trust Fund to help people and individuals “most harmed by the failed War on Drugs,” according to a summary from Schumer’s office. It would disallow possession of cannabis to be used against any noncitizen in an immigration proceeding and prevent withholding of other federal benefits from people who use the drug.

While the bill would remove cannabis from regulations under the Controlled Substances Act, it would add new federal oversight, making the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau the federal agency with jurisdiction over the drug.

The bill would establish a federal Center for Cannabis Products to regulate production, sales, distribution and other elements of the cannabis industry, instruct the Food and Drug Administration to establish labeling standards and create programs to prevent youth marijuana use.

It would also retain a federal prohibition on marijuana trafficking conducted outside of state-legal markets, ask the Transportation Department to develop standards on cannabis-impaired driving and have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration collect data and create educational materials on cannabis-impaired driving.

The post U.S. Senate Dems launch renewed push for full marijuana legalization appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.

Two loons swim with their chick on Clear Lake in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in 2021. (Max Nesterak | Minnesota Reformer)

The U.S. House approved four bills focused on natural resources and land management Tuesday, promoting a Republican message of dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s approach to conservation.

The four bills would force the withdrawal of a recent Bureau of Land Management rule that would allow leases for conservation, remove mining restrictions near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters, delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act and block federal bans on lead ammunition.

The bills passed with few members of each party crossing the aisle.

They are unlikely to become law — or even receive a vote in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate — but their passage is an election-year message that Republicans support extractive industries in rural communities and oppose what they describe as an overreaching environmental agenda.

“Whether it’s the new BLM rule that fundamentally threatens the western way of life, or the decision to lock up enormous deposits of increasingly scarce minerals, it’s clear Biden and his bureaucrats have no interest in properly stewarding our federal lands or listening to local stakeholders,” House Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican, said in a statement following the votes.

Democrats blasted the bills, saying they were ideological rather than practical.

“The entire House schedule this week misses the mark,” California Democrat Jared Huffman said. “It elevates right-wing ideology over the actual needs of the American people.”

Huffman managed Democratic speakers during much of Tuesday’s floor debate in place of House Natural Resources ranking Democrat Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, who announced a cancer diagnosis last month.

Biden has signaled strong opposition to the bills.

BLM rule

The House voted 212-202 to pass Utah Republican John Curtis’ bill to withdraw the recent BLM rule. Democrats Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington voted yes, along with all Republicans except for Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.

The rule creates a new type of lease for conservation, putting it on the same level as extractive industries like mining, energy development and livestock grazing.

Republicans have vocally opposed it since it was first proposed last year, saying it upends the agency’s decades-long multiple-use framework.

BLM lands should be reserved for productive uses, several House Republicans said Tuesday.

“Conservation is not a use,” Westerman said on the House floor Tuesday. “It’s a value and an outcome that can be generated by the uses” that are already in place on BLM lands.

Democrats said the rule did not block any other use, but simply elevated conservation, which they said was an important consideration.

“The rule will protect clean water, clean air and wildlife habitat,” Colorado Democrat Joe Neguse said. “It’ll promote the restoration of degraded landscapes. It will ensure that decisions are based on the best available science and collaboration with tribal, local and rural communities.

“But here is what the bill does not do,” he added. “It does not disallow or preclude any one of the multiple uses that the chairman referenced during the opening of this particular debate.”

Boundary Waters

The House passed, 212-203, a bill to rescind an administration ban on mining operations near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Northern Minnesota. Golden and Perez voted in favor along with all Republicans.

Pete Stauber, the representative from the area who introduced the measure, said it would promote the economy of the mineral-rich region.

Stauber, a Republican who chairs a mining subcommittee, criticized the Biden administration’s approach to extractive industries. Boosting domestic mining would give U.S. policymakers more control over environmental and labor protections than importing critical minerals from overseas.

“Biden’s mining policy of anywhere but America, any worker but American must be stopped,” Stauber said. “We can find these minerals domestically under the best labor and environmental standards in the world. We know this all too well in Northern Minnesota, where mining is our past, our present and our future.”

Democrats objected to the bill, saying it endangered the Boundary Waters separating Minnesota from Canada. The wilderness area is a beloved destination for many in the state.

“This piece of legislation would revoke key protections for a watershed that contains some of the purest, freshest water in the nation, in the world,” Minnesota Democrat Betty McCollum said.

Gray wolf 

The House voted 209-205 to pass a bill authored by Colorado Republican Lauren Boebert that would remove the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list.

Republicans Fitzpatrick, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Mike Garcia of California and Nancy Mace of South Carolina voted against the bill. Democrats Yadira Caraveo of Colorado, Cuellar, Golden and Perez voted in favor.

Under the bill, states would be empowered to manage wolf populations, Boebert said on the House floor.

During floor debate, Republicans said wolves have fully recovered and no longer needed federal protections. They also said the predators were a nuisance to livestock and the ranchers whose livelihoods depend on cattle and sheep.

“I stand here today celebrating the success story of the Endangered Species Act, seeing that the gray wolf has been fully recovered,” Boebert said. “I also stand today … in defense of our farmers and our ranchers.”

Democrats argued that while gray wolves’ numbers have increased, they are still in danger of extinction if federal protections were to disappear.

Virginia Democrat Don Beyer noted that states such as Montana, Wyoming and Idaho that have delisted wolves saw overhunting.

“We’re in the midst of a biodiversity crisis,” Beyer said. “We should be supporting current scientific efforts by fully funding the agencies that carry out ESA extinction preservation work.”

Beyer also took a veiled shot at South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican who described in a recently published memoir killing her 14-month-old hunting dog in a gravel pit.

Dogs kill twice as many cattle as wolves, Beyer said.

“Yet we don’t say that all good dogs should go to the gravel pit,” he said.

Lead bullets

The House also passed, 214-201, a bill sponsored by Virginia Republican Rob Wittman to block the Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior from regulating the use of lead ammunition or lead fishing equipment on federal lands or waters.

Republicans Fitzpatrick, Gatez and Vern Buchanan of Florida voted against it.

Democrats Cuellar, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Robert Garcia of California, Golden, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Mary Peltola of Alaska and Perez voted in favor.

Each side accused the other of indulging special interests on the issue.

Democrats said Republicans were more concerned about blocking regulations on guns than promoting hunting and fishing.

“When it comes to guns, and now ammo, any type of restriction is too much for Republican ideology,” Huffman said.

Westerman said the bill “probably is more aimed at” fending off “any kind of attack they can take on our Second Amendment rights,” but said that Democrats’ opposition was due to their loyalty to extreme environmentalists.

“Manage these lands for the public, not for your special interest, radical environmental groups,” he said. “I think Congress has to take the lead on that.”

The post U.S. House votes to kill BLM rule, delist gray wolf, end Boundary Waters mining limits appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.

David Burr demonstrates removing leaves on marijuana plants to allow more light for growth at Essence Vegas’ 54,000-square-foot marijuana cultivation facility on July 6, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Ethan Miller | Getty Images)

The Biden administration plans to remove marijuana from a list of the most dangerous and highly regulated drugs, the Department of Justice said Tuesday night.

The Drug Enforcement Administration will propose moving the drug from a Schedule I substance, which also includes heroin and methamphetamine, to Schedule III, which is the category for regulated-but-legal drugs including testosterone and Tylenol with codeine.

“Today, the Attorney General circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III,” DOJ spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement to States Newsroom. “Once published by the Federal Register, it will initiate a formal rulemaking process as prescribed by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act.”

Cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act since 1971, even as many states have moved to legalize recreational use for more than a decade and medicinal use for even longer.

State-legal marijuana businesses make up a multibillion-dollar industry, but the illegal status of the drug under federal law creates barriers unseen by other industries, including a lack of access to banking and the inability to deduct business expenses from taxes.

Social justice advocates have also noted that prosecutions for marijuana-related crimes have hurt communities of color. Many of those convicted for offenses related to marijuana have not benefited from the recent decriminalization in many states.

Moving cannabis to Schedule III would allow a more permissive approach to the drug, including permitting greater study of medicinal uses and allowing related businesses to use a common tax deduction.

Schumer praises development

Congressional leaders on the issue and other advocates of changing marijuana’s status welcomed the news Tuesday afternoon, even as they called for further action.

“It is great news that DEA is finally recognizing that restrictive and Draconian cannabis laws need to change to catch up to what science and the majority of Americans have said loud and clear,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

The New York Democrat added that other legislation, including bills to provide cannabis businesses with greater access to banking and to completely delist the drug, is still needed.

“Congress must do everything we can to end the federal prohibition on cannabis and address longstanding harms caused by the war on drugs,” he said.

Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat from Colorado who was the state’s governor when it and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational use in 2012, said the news was welcome but did not go far enough.

“Rescheduling marijuana is a step in the right direction. But – just a step,” he posted to X. “Marijuana should be DEscheduled altogether.”

The state’s current Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, cheered the report in a written statement.

“I am thrilled by the Biden Administration’s decision to begin the process of finally rescheduling cannabis, following the lead of Colorado and 37 other states that have already legalized it for medical or adult use, correcting decades of outdated federal policy,” Polis said.

“This action is good for Colorado businesses and our economy, it will improve public safety, and will support a more just and equitable system for all.”

The U.S. Cannabis Council, a business group, applauded the expected change.

The move was based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services research and would have myriad benefits for business, Executive Director Edward Conklin said in a written statement.

The update would put marijuana on a path to full legalization and make it easier for state-legal businesses to run profitable operations, he said.

“Moving to Schedule III represents a tectonic shift in our nation’s drug laws. The US Cannabis Council is committed to ending federal cannabis prohibition, and we believe that reclassification is a necessary and critical step toward that goal,” he wrote. “In the coming days, we will submit comments to the DEA in support of the proposed rule.”

This report has been updated to include a Tuesday night announcement by the Department of Justice about federal marijuana regulations.

The post Biden administration to greatly ease marijuana regulations appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - APRIL 15: Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears ahead of the start of jury selection at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 15, 2024 in New York City. Former President Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial. (Photo by Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump defied a gag order in his New York state hush-money trial by posting attacks on likely witnesses on his social media platform and campaign website, the judge in the case ruled Tuesday.

Judge Juan M. Merchan fined Trump $9,000 for nine violations of an order barring him from making public statements about “reasonably foreseeable witnesses” or prospective jurors in the case, in which Trump is accused of disguising payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels to conceal an alleged affair.

Merchan also ordered the offending posts to be taken down by 2:15 p.m. Eastern Tuesday.

Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for president, had posted to his social media site, Truth Social, and to his campaign website comments about Daniels and Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and fixer, who prosecutors say delivered a $130,000 payment to Daniels.

Cohen and Daniels are expected to testify for the prosecution in the criminal trial, the first involving a former U.S. president.

Trump did not deny posting any of the items, but said they were in response to political attacks by Cohen and Daniels. Merchan’s order allowed Trump to respond to political attacks.

Prosecutors had asked Merchan to fine Trump for 10 statements, but the judge gave Trump a pass on the first post in question, which Merchan said could be interpreted as a response to tweets from Cohen that could be considered political attacks.

Merchan said Tuesday he was broadly interpreting political attacks out of deference to Trump’s First Amendment right to free speech, which he said was especially important as Trump runs again for the White House.

“It is critically important that Defendant’s legitimate free speech rights not be curtailed, that he be able to fully campaign for the office which he seeks and that he be able to respond and defend himself against political attacks,” Merchan wrote. “For that reason, this Court exercised discretion when it crafted the Expanded Order and delayed issuing it until the eve of trial.”

Reposts as endorsements

Trump also argued that “reposts” from other accounts should not count as his own speech.

Merchan roundly rejected that argument, noting Trump has bragged about the size of his audience on Truth Social and fully controlled its content.

“There can be no doubt whatsoever, that Defendant’s intent and purpose when reposting, is to communicate to his audience that he endorses and adopts the posted statement as his own,” Merchan said. “It is counterintuitive and indeed absurd, to read the Expanded Order to not proscribe statements that Defendant intentionally selected and published to maximize exposure.”

Tuesday’s order also warns Trump “that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations” of the gag order and warned that Merchan may impose jail time for further violations.

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who is the ranking minority member on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, told reporters in Washington Tuesday that he did not expect the ruling to lead Trump to change his behavior.

“I don’t think he’ll take it seriously, unless he’s going to be held overnight or something like that,” Raskin said. “He acts with utter contempt towards the rule of law.”

Raskin, a constitutional law professor, was the lead impeachment manager during Trump’s second impeachment, which dealt with the then-president’s efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Raskin also was a member of the House Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The trial resumed Tuesday with testimony from Gary Farro, a former banker of Cohen’s, after a break Monday.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

The post Trump fined $9,000 for violating gag order in NY hush-money trial appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.

A deal for FAA reauthorization would add flights to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, despite opposition from U.S. senators from Virginia and Maryland, who said in a letter on Monday, April 29, 2024, that the move would hurt safety efforts. Shown is the terminal and air traffic control tower at Washington National. (Patrick Donovan | Getty Photos)

Key members of Congress announced an agreement Monday on a $105 billion bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration for five years ahead of a May 10 deadline.

The 1,000-page bill would raise hiring targets for air traffic control and would codify in law a rule the Biden administration introduced this month requiring airlines to offer refunds for canceled or significantly delayed flights, among other consumer-focused provisions.

The legislation also would add flights to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, despite opposition from U.S. senators from Virginia and Maryland who said in a letter Monday the move would hurt safety efforts.

The compromise measure was negotiated by U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington state, and ranking Republican Ted Cruz of Texas and U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, and ranking Democrat Rick Larsen, a Washington Democrat.

The four lawmakers released a joint statement announcing the agreement early Monday praising their “bipartisan, bicameral, comprehensive agreement.”

“The American people deserve nothing less than the safest and most efficient aerospace system in the world, and to that end, our bill provides critical safety enhancements, grows America’s aviation workforce, invests in infrastructure at airports of all sizes, sets clear priorities for advancing innovative aviation solutions, improves the flying public’s travel experience, and ensures a healthy general aviation sector for years to come,” the lawmakers said.

The bill would authorize $66.7 billion to fund key safety programs such as aircraft safety certification and the hiring of air traffic controllers and technical engineers. It would also authorize $19.35 billion for infrastructure improvements. It would more than double annual funding for the Essential Air Service program that subsidizes flights to small rural airports.

No votes have been scheduled in either chamber on the measure, which President Joe Biden must sign by midnight on May 10 to avoid a lapse in FAA authority.

Washington National Airport

With endorsements from committee leaders on both sides of the aisle, the bill should have broad bipartisan appeal in both chambers of Congress.

But senators from the states bordering Washington, D.C., said Monday they opposed the provision adding five incoming and five outgoing flights to Washington’s Reagan National Airport, or DCA, located in Northern Virginia just across the Potomac River.

In a statement, Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia and Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland vowed to “continue to fight against this ridiculous and dangerous provision.”

Two planes cleared to take off from the busy airport came within 400 feet of crashing in an April 18 incident. The near-miss should have underscored the crowded conditions at DCA, which, as the closest airport to the Capitol, is a favorite of members of Congress, the senators wrote.

Committee members, none of whom are from the area, “decided to ignore the flashing red warning light of the recent near collision of two aircraft at DCA and jam even more flights onto the busiest runway in America,” the senators said. “It should go without saying that the safety of the traveling public should be a higher priority than the convenience of a few lawmakers who want direct flights home from their preferred airport.”

Because the federal government owns DCA and Dulles International Airport further into the Northern Virginia suburbs, Congress has the power to make operational changes.

Consumer provisions

The bill includes several provisions meant to protect consumers.

It would establish in law a rule the Biden administration proposed this month to require airlines to offer cash refunds for flight delays of more than three hours for domestic flights or six hours for international travel.

The Biden administration had sought such a measure, even as it pursued the rule.

It would also require airline credits to be effective for at least five years, bar airlines from charging families to sit together and require the Transportation Department to create a digital dashboard of the minimum seat sizes for U.S. airlines. It does not mandate a national standard for seat size, but it does direct the FAA to decide if a rule on the issue is needed.

The legislation would establish a Senate-confirmed position of deputy secretary for consumer protection, who would run a new office with an annual budget of $14 million dedicated to consumer issues.

The post Congress to add flights at Washington National, require new air refund rule in FAA deal appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.

Dozens of anti-Trump protesters gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 25, 2024, while the justices heard arguments about whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution on criminal charges related to his actions while in office. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical Thursday of former President Donald Trump’s argument he is immune from criminal charges that he tried to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

But conservatives who dominate the court appeared open to returning key questions to a trial court, possibly delaying Trump’s prosecution beyond the November election — and essentially assisting the former president as he fights legal challenges on multiple fronts.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has argued in a federal trial court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that his actions following the 2020 election and leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, were “official acts” conducted while still in office and therefore are not subject to criminal prosecution.

While court precedent establishes that U.S. presidents are immune to civil damages for their official acts, and to criminal prosecution while in office, the justices now must decide the unanswered question of whether former presidents are absolutely immune from criminal law.

At oral arguments Thursday in Trump v. United States, much of the discussion centered on what should be considered an official presidential act.

Several conservative justices suggested that lower courts work to determine what aspects of the charges against Trump arose solely from his private conduct.

Such a detour could eat up additional weeks or months as the trial calendar converges with Election Day.

A decision from the court may not arrive until late June or early July. If a ruling calls for additional fact-finding at the trial court level, Trump’s election interference trial likely would not happen prior to the November election.

Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, of St. Louis, argued that nearly everything a president does in office — including hypotheticals about ordering a military coup or assassinating a political rival — could be considered official acts.

While much of the court appeared skeptical of that broad view of official acts, several justices on the conservative wing asked about having the trial court determine what acts should be considered official. They also suggested prosecutors could drop sections of the four-count indictment against Trump that dealt with official acts.

The court’s three liberal justices voiced serious concerns about Trump’s immunity argument, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wondering aloud if the court accepting a broad view of criminal immunity for the president would make the Oval Office “the seat of criminal activity.”

The case is one of four in state and federal courts in which criminal charges have been made against Trump. On Thursday, he was in a New York state courtroom where he faces charges in an ongoing hush-money trial; the judge there did not allow him to attend the Supreme Court arguments.

Trial court determination

Conservative justices asked if they could avoid the constitutional question by having the trial court, presided over by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, determine which parts of the allegations could be considered official or unofficial acts.

Special counsel Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors have indicated that prosecuting only Trump’s private conduct would be sufficient, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

“The normal process, what Mr. Sauer asked, would be for us to remand if we decided that there were some official acts immunity, and to let that be sorted out below,” Barrett said, referring to a process in which a case is sent back to a lower court. “It is another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct.”

‘Absolute immunity’

Sauer argued, as he has for months, for “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for presidents acting in their official capacity.

No president who has not been impeached and removed from office can be prosecuted for official actions, Sauer said, broadly interpreting the meaning of official acts.

Liberal justices questioned Sauer about how far his definition of official acts would stretch. Trump’s attorney was reluctant to list any exceptions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked a hypothetical that arose in a lower court: Would it be an official act for the president to order the assassination of a political rival?

“That could well be an official act,” Sauer answered.

He also answered Justice Elena Kagan that it could be an official act for a president to order a military coup, though Sauer said “it would depend on the circumstances.”

Michael R. Dreeben, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, argued that Trump’s broad view of presidential immunity would break a fundamental element of U.S. democracy, that no one is above the law.

“His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power,” Dreeben said.

Jackson, questioning Sauer, appeared to agree with that argument.

She said Sauer appeared worried that the president would be “chilled” by potential criminal prosecution, but she said there would be “a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn’t chilled.”

“Once we say, ‘No criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office,” Jackson said.

‘A special, peculiarly precarious position’

But other members of the court appeared more amenable to Sauer’s argument that subjecting presidents to criminal prosecution would constrain them.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s conservatives, asked Dreeben about Trump’s argument that a president’s duties require a broad view of immunity.

The president has to make difficult decisions, sometimes in areas of law that are unsettled, Alito said.

“I understand you to say, ‘If he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake, he’s subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else,’” Alito said. “You don’t think he’s in a special, peculiarly precarious position?”

Dreeben answered that the president has access to highly qualified legal advice and that making a mistake is not what generally leads to criminal prosecution.

He also noted that the allegations against Trump involve him going beyond his powers as president to interfere with the certification of an election, which is not a presidential power in the Constitution.

Incumbents leaving office

Alito, who seemed to be the justice most sympathetic to Trump’s argument that allowing a president to be prosecuted would undermine the powers of the office, also raised the prospect that incumbents who lose elections may seek to illegally stay in power precisely because prosecution would await after they leave office.

“A stable democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully,” he said.

“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is … the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”

Dreeben answered that “it’s exactly the opposite,” because there are well-established lawful options, including court challenges, available to challenge election results.

Trump posted several times Thursday morning on his social media platform Truth Social that the president would “have no power at all” without absolute immunity.

“That would be the end of the Presidency, and our Country, as we know it, and is just one of the many Traps there would be for a President without Presidential Immunity. Obama, Bush, and soon, Crooked Joe Biden, would all be in BIG TROUBLE,” he wrote.

‘Writing a rule for the ages’

Some justices indicated they will be thinking beyond the question as it relates to Trump’s election interference charges, possibly hinting at a drawn-out process in issuing an opinion.

Criminally prosecuting a former president could open the door to prosecution based on motives, including the motive to get reelected or for other personal gain, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested.

“I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives,” Gorsuch said in a lengthy back-and-forth with Dreeben.

“I’m going to say something that I don’t normally say, which is: That’s really not involved in this case,” Dreeben said, eliciting a laugh from Gorsuch.

“I understand that. I appreciate that. But you also appreciate that we’re writing a rule for the ages,” Gorsuch responded.

At another point, Dreeben tried to redirect the justices to specific details of the Trump case, including his point that the judicial system has safeguards against purely politically motivated and retaliatory legal action.

Dreeben attempted to detail for Alito that the Justice Department functioned “in the way that it is supposed to” when Trump’s alleged plan to ask officials to send fraudulent letters to states regarding election results failed.

Alito pushed back, saying he wanted to discuss the case “in the abstract.”

“I understand that Mr. Dreeben. But as I said, this case will have effects that go far beyond this particular prosecution,” Alito said.

Alan Morrison, a law professor at George Washington University who has argued 20 cases before the Supreme Court, said in a phone interview after oral arguments that the court will not reach “a fast decision” as the justices wrestle with the extent of what is considered a president’s official acts.

“Neither side is going to get everything they want,” Morrison said. “And the hardest questions to answer are going to be what are official and what are not official acts.”

‘Reacting against a monarch’

Sticking to the specifics of the indictment against Trump, Kagan ran through a list of the allegations and asked Sauer to discern what constituted an official act.

“The defendant asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud,” Kagan said, citing the indictment.

“Absolutely an official act for the president to communicate with state officials on a matter of enormous federal interest and concern,” Sauer answered, “attempting to defend the integrity of a federal election to communicate with state officials and urge them to view what he views as their job under state law and federal law.”

Kagan moved to hypotheticals and asked if a president who ordered a military coup, but was never impeached and convicted by Congress, could not be held to U.S. criminal law.

“He was the president. He is the commander in chief. He talks to his generals all the time, and he told the generals, ‘I don’t feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup.’ Is that immune?”

“If it’s an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand,” Sauer said, citing the defense’s reliance on the Constitution’s Impeachment Clause argument.

“That is the wisdom of the (Constitution’s) framers,” he added.

“The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution,” she quickly responded. “… They didn’t provide immunity to the president, and you know, not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law.”

“Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” she said.

Federal election interference charges

A federal grand jury charged Trump with four felony counts in August 2023 for working with several co-conspirators to overturn election results in seven states.

The indictment charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding, among other charges.

Trump allegedly worked with several others to replace legitimate electors with fraudulent ones in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the indictment.

The prosecution also alleges that he tried to leverage the Justice Department to pressure the states to replace their slates of electors, and pressure Vice President Mike Pence into altering results during Congress’s joint session to certify the results on Jan. 6, 2021.

The post U.S. Supreme Court floats return to trial court for Trump in presidential immunity case appeared first on New Jersey Monitor.