DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

☆ Supreme Court Sets Rules for Blocking Citizens From Officials’ Accounts
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-15 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court, in a pair of unanimous decisions on Friday, added some clarity to a vexing constitutional puzzle: how to decide when elected officials violate the First Amendment by blocking people from their social media accounts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court in the lead case, said two things are required before officials may be sued by people they have blocked. The court did not apply the new standard to the cases before them, involving a city manager in Port Huron, Mich., and two members of a school board in California. The cases were the first of several this term in which the Supreme Court is considering how the First Amendment applies to social media. The court heard arguments last month on whether states may prohibit large technology platforms from removing posts based on the views they express, and it will consider on Monday whether Biden administration officials may contact social media platforms to combat what they say is misinformation.

Persons: Amy Coney Barrett Organizations: Biden Locations: Port Huron, Mich, California

☆ In Trump Cases, Supreme Court Cannot Avoid Politics
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-05 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: 1 min

In major cases concerning former President Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Court has tried to put some distance between itself and politics. “If the court is trying to stay out of the political fray, it is failing miserably,” said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University. The case for attempted unity at the court in cases involving the former president is built on 27 data points, or nine votes each in three important rulings, all nominally unanimous. Those rulings suggest that the justices are trying to find consensus and avoid politics. There were no dissents, for instance, in Monday’s Supreme Court decision letting Mr. Trump stay on ballots nationwide despite a constitutional provision that bars insurrectionists from holding office.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, “, ”, Melissa Murray Organizations: New York University

☆ Justice Amy Coney Barrett Stakes Out Distinctive Stance in Trump Case
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-05 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion was just a page long, all of two paragraphs. Justice Barrett was the third of Mr. Trump’s appointees, rushed onto the court after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, arriving just before the 2020 election. But she is viewed as one of the more moderate members, relatively speaking, of the court’s six-member conservative supermajority. In public appearances, she is adamant that the court is apolitical, though she sometimes says so in venues that undercut her message. In 2021, for instance, Justice Barrett told an audience in Kentucky that “my goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

Persons: Amy Coney Barrett’s, Donald J, Justice Barrett, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Barrett Organizations: Mr Locations: Monday’s, Kentucky

☆ Trump Prevails in Supreme Court Challenge to His Eligibility
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-04 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that states may not bar former President Donald J. Trump from running for another term, rejecting a challenge from Colorado to his eligibility that threatened to upend the presidential race by taking him off ballots around the nation. Though the justices provided different reasons, the decision’s bottom line was unanimous. All the opinions focused on legal issues, and none took a position on whether Mr. Trump had engaged in insurrection, as Colorado courts had found. All the justices agreed that individual states may not bar candidates for the presidency under a constitutional provision, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, that prohibits insurrectionists from holding office. But the five-justice majority, in an unsigned opinion answering questions not directly before the court, ruled that Congress must act to give Section 3 force.

Persons: Donald J, Trump Organizations: Trump Locations: Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the first part of the ruling — that Mr. Trump had engaged in an insurrection. Mr. Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, setting out more than half a dozen arguments about why the state court had gone astray and saying his removal would override the will of the voters. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”The State Supreme Court addressed several other issues. 23-719, is not the only one concerning Mr. Trump on the Supreme Court’s docket. And the justices already agreed to decide on the scope of a central charge in the federal election-interference case against Mr. Trump, with a ruling by June.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, Bush, Gore, George W, Mr, “, ” Mr, Trump’s, Jan, Anderson Organizations: Colorado, Republican, United, The, The Colorado Supreme, Colorado Supreme, Mr, U.S, Supreme, “, Trump, Capitol Locations: United States, Colorado, The Colorado

☆ Supreme Court Poised to Rule on Monday on Trump’s Eligibility to Hold Office
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-03 | by ( Adam Liptak | More About Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Indeed, the decision will almost certainly apply to any other state where Mr. Trump’s eligibility to run has been challenged. Not since Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush, has the Supreme Court assumed such a direct role in a presidential contest. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Mr. Trump is ineligible to seek or hold office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War and prohibits people who swore to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office. After Mr. Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 3 to hear his appeal, the justices have moved with considerable speed to resolve the issue. Based on questioning at the oral argument, Mr. Trump is likely to prevail.

Persons: Trump, Bush, Gore, George W Organizations: Colorado Supreme, Mr, U.S, Supreme Locations: Colorado

☆ Pace of Supreme Court Immunity Case Shadowed by Looming Election
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-29 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

It set a plausibly expedited schedule for considering a question of significant constitutional moment, one that would ordinarily be resolved by the justices in a definitive opinion. But the court’s order appeared to ignore the enormous elephant in the room: the looming election that makes Mr. Trump’s trial on charges that he had plotted to overturn the 2020 election a race against time. The schedule the court set could make it hard, if not impossible, to complete Mr. Trump’s trial before the 2024 election. Should Mr. Trump win at the polls, there is every reason to think the prosecution would be scuttled. Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the prosecution, never cited the November election as a reason for the court to move quickly.

Persons: Felix Frankfurter, ”, Donald J, Trump’s, Trump, Jack Smith Locations: “

Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works in Austin, opposes the ban on bump stock sales. “During the Trump administration, the bump stock ban cropped up as a rather glaring example of unlawful administrative power,” Philip Hamburger, a founder of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said in an email. Image A bump stock attaches to a semiautomatic rifle and enables it to fire at a much higher rate. In response, the Justice Department promised to review the legality of bump stocks, but A.T.F. Eventually, the full court agreed with Mr. Cargill by vote of 13 to 3, split along ideological lines.

Persons: Michael Cargill, ”, Cargill, Trump, ” Philip Hamburger, Elizabeth B, Prelogar, George Frey, Cargill strolled, “, Mark Chenoweth, ” Mr, Chenoweth, Obama, ” “, Mr, Charles Koch, Jonathan F, Mitchell, Donald J, Stephen Paddock, Erin Schaff, Jennifer Walker Elrod Organizations: Central Texas Gun, Government, Army, New Civil Liberties Alliance, —, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, National Firearms, Charles Koch Foundation, Koch Industries, Colorado Supreme, National Rifle Association, Justice Department, Congress, The New York Times Federal, U.S ., Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Mr, Gun Control Locations: Austin, Las Vegas, ”, “, Texas

☆ Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump’s Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-28 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, further delaying his criminal trial as it considers the matter. The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen, handing at least an interim victory to Mr. Trump. His litigation strategy in all of the criminal prosecutions against him has consisted, in large part, of trying to slow things down. The Supreme Court’s response to Mr. Trump put the justices in the unusual position of deciding another aspect of the former president’s fate: whether and how quickly Mr. Trump could go to trial. Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the federal prosecutions of Mr. Trump, had asked the court to move more quickly, requesting that the justices hear the case in March.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, Jack Smith

☆ A Conservative Judge’s Critique of the Supreme Court’s Reliance on Tradition
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-26 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Judges who are committed to originalism, which seeks to interpret the Constitution based on what it meant when it was adopted, often say they are guided by “text, history and tradition.” The phrase rolls nicely off the tongue. But one of those things is not like the others, a conservative federal appeals court judge said this month in a lively talk at Harvard Law School that critiqued recent trends at the Supreme Court. And maybe it is indeed all those things. But let’s be clear: It’s not originalism.”The Supreme Court’s blockbuster 2022 decisions eliminating the right to abortion and expanding gun rights both drew on traditions that emerged after the constitutional provisions in question were ratified. The rulings did not turn on their discussion of tradition, but nor were they minor asides.

Persons: ”, Kevin C, Newsom, Donald J Organizations: Harvard Law School, Supreme, U.S ., Appeals, Circuit, Trump

Supporters of the state laws say they foster free speech, giving the public access to all points of view. One contrarian brief, from liberal professors, urged the justices to uphold the key provision of the Texas law despite the harm they said it would cause. “Social media platforms exercise editorial judgment that is inherently expressive,” Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote for the panel. To the surprise of many, some prominent liberal professors filed a brief urging the justices to uphold a key provision of the Texas law. In the second case, Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the Supreme Court in 1974 struck down a Florida law that would have allowed politicians a “right to reply” to newspaper articles critical of them.

Persons: Samuel A, Alito Jr, ”, Scott Wilkens, Ron DeSantis, John Tully, Donald J, Trump, Greg Abbott of, —, Ken Paxton, “, Andrew S, Oldham, Kevin C, Newsom, Lawrence Lessig, Tim Wu of, Teachout, Mandel Ngan, Richard L, “ Florida’s, Moody, Paxton, Robins, William H, Rehnquist, Pat L, Tornillo, Warren E, Burger Organizations: Facebook, YouTube, Columbia University, Big Tech, The New York Times, Gov, Republican, Computer & Communications Industry, New York Times, Fox News, U.S ., Appeals, Fifth Circuit, ISIS, Harvard, Tim Wu of Columbia, Zephyr, Fordham, Twitter, Manchester Union, Citizens United, Agence France, University of California, Miami Herald, Florida, Representatives, Constitution Locations: Florida, Texas, Greg Abbott of Texas, Ukraine, Los Angeles, Campbell , Calif

☆ Supreme Court to Hear Free Speech Challenges to Social Media Laws
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-26 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a pair of cases that could fundamentally change discourse on the internet by defining, for the first time, what rights social media companies have to limit what their users can post. The court’s decision, expected by June, will almost certainly be its most important statement on the scope of the First Amendment in the internet era, and it will have major political and economic implications. That, in turn, could deal a blow to the platforms’ business models, which rely on curation to attract users and advertisers. The laws’ supporters said they were an attempt to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship, through which major social media companies had deleted posts expressing conservative views. The laws were prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Persons: Donald J, Trump Organizations: Facebook, YouTube, Capitol

☆ Supreme Court to Decide How the First Amendment Applies to Social Media
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-25 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The most important First Amendment cases of the internet era, to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, may turn on a single question: Do platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X most closely resemble newspapers or shopping centers or phone companies? The two cases arrive at the court garbed in politics, as they concern laws in Florida and Texas aimed at protecting conservative speech by forbidding leading social media sites from removing posts based on the views they express. Picking the apt analogy from the court’s precedents could decide the matter, but none of the available ones is a perfect fit. If the platforms are like newspapers, they may publish what they want without government interference. If they are like private shopping centers open to the public, they may be required to let visitors say what they like.

Organizations: Facebook, YouTube Locations: Florida, Texas

☆ Supreme Court Seems Ready to Block a Biden Plan on Air Pollution
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-21 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined on Wednesday to again limit the Biden administration’s ability to protect the environment by temporarily stopping an effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to curtail air pollution that drifts across state lines. Such a decision, expected by June, would be in keeping with recent rulings by the court, which has chipped away at the agency’s authority to address climate change and water pollution. The new cases concerned the administration’s “good neighbor” plan. Under the proposal, which initially applied to 23 states, factories and power plants in Western and Midwestern states must cut ozone pollution that drifts into Eastern states. The justices appeared to be divided along familiar lines on whether to block the plan, which directs states to take measures meant to reduce emissions that cause smog and are linked to asthma, lung disease and premature death.

Organizations: Biden, Environmental Protection Agency Locations: Western

☆ Supreme Court Won’t Hear New Case on Race and School Admissions
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-20 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to hear a challenge to new admissions criteria at an elite public high school in Virginia that eliminated standardized tests, clearing the way for the use of a policy intended to diversify the school’s student body. As is its custom, the court gave no reasons for turning down the case. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. issued a dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, that was harshly critical of an appeals court’s ruling in the case upholding the new criteria and rejecting the challengers’ argument that they unlawfully disadvantaged Asian Americans. The Supreme Court’s “willingness to swallow the aberrant decision below is hard to understand,” Justice Alito wrote. G. Roberts, quoted an earlier ruling that stated, “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”

Persons: Samuel A, Alito Jr, Clarence Thomas, ”, Alito, “, John, G, Roberts Organizations: Harvard, University of North Locations: Virginia, University of North Carolina

☆ Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Move Quickly in Trump Immunity Case
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-14 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to reject a request from Mr. Trump to put the case on hold while he pursues appeals. The question before the justices is preliminary: Should they pause an appeals court’s ruling rejecting Mr. Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for things he did while president? The answer to that will determine whether trial proceedings may resume as the Supreme Court considers whether to hear a promised petition seeking review of the ruling itself. The trial had been scheduled to start on March 4 but was deferred while the lower courts sorted out whether Mr. Trump has immunity. When a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Mr. Trump this month, it gave him a brief window to seek a stay from the Supreme Court saying that proceedings at the trial court would not restart until the justices ruled on his application.

Persons: Jack Smith, Donald J, Trump, “, Mr, Trump’s Organizations: U.S ., Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Mr

☆ Supreme Court Gives Prosecutors a Week to Respond in Trump Immunity Case
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-13 | by ( Adam Liptak | More About Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump, a week to respond to Mr. Trump’s emergency application asking the justices to halt an appeals court’s ruling that rejected his claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal charges. In asking Mr. Smith to respond by Feb. 20 at 4 p.m., the justices did not set a particularly speedy schedule. But nothing prevents Mr. Smith from filing sooner, and he probably will. The proceedings against Mr. Trump in the trial court will remain frozen in the meantime. In asking the Supreme Court to intervene on Monday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers urged the justices to move at a deliberate pace.

Persons: Jack Smith, Donald J, Trump, Mr, Smith Organizations: Mr

☆ Trump Asks Supreme Court to Pause Ruling Denying Him Absolute Immunity
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-12 | by ( Adam Liptak | Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Former President Donald J. Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to pause an appeals court’s ruling rejecting his claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal charges based on his attempts to subvert the 2020 election. Unless the justices issue a stay while they consider whether to hear his promised appeal, proceedings in the criminal trial, which have been on hold, will resume. The filing was Mr. Trump’s last-ditch effort to press his claim of total immunity, which has been rejected by two lower courts. The Supreme Court is now poised to determine whether and how fast his federal trial on charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election will proceed. Mr. Trump’s filing came after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that he may not be prosecuted for actions he took while in office.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, Trump’s Organizations: U.S ., Appeals, District of Columbia

☆ Three Big Legal Questions
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-09 | by ( David Leonhardt | Ian Prasad Philbrick | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

In a two-hour oral argument at the Supreme Court yesterday, nearly all justices appeared skeptical of Colorado’s effort to keep Trump off the ballot. Maine has also moved to bar Trump, and other states would likely follow if the Supreme Court were to allow it. The legal issues are complex, and we walk through them below. As Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, told us yesterday:Donald Trump is accused of doing grave wrongs in trying to overturn the election. Many legal experts expect the court to rule quickly (as this story explains) and to issue a broad decision that applies to all states.

Persons: Donald Trump’s, Trump, Adam Liptak, Donald Trump, Neal Katyal, Obama Organizations: Colorado, Trump, The Times, ”, Republican Locations: Washington, United States

Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicIn December, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a bombshell ruling that said Donald Trump was ineligible to be on the state’s ballot for the Republican presidential primary, saying he was disqualified under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution because he had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6. The Supreme Court has taken on the case and on Thursday, the justices heard arguments for and against keeping Trump on the ballot. Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, analyzes the arguments, the justices’ responses, and what they can tell us about the likely ruling in a case that could alter the course of this year’s race for president.

Persons: Donald Trump, Adam Liptak Organizations: Spotify, Colorado Supreme, Republican, Trump, The Times Locations: Colorado

☆ Supreme Court to Hear Case on Trump’s Eligibility for Another Term
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-08 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: 1 min

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Thursday in an extraordinary case that could alter the course of the presidential election by deciding whether former President Donald J. Trump’s conduct in trying to subvert the 2020 race made him ineligible to hold office again. Not since Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush, has the Supreme Court assumed such a direct role in the outcome of a presidential contest. The sweep of the court’s ruling is likely to be broad. It will probably not only resolve whether Mr. Trump may appear on the Colorado primary ballot, but it will also most likely determine his eligibility to run in the general election and to hold office at all. The case is just one of several involving or affecting Mr. Trump on the court’s docket or approaching it.

Persons: Donald J, Bush, Gore, George W, Trump Locations: Colorado

In analyzing whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applied to Mr. Trump, a trial court judge in Denver and Colorado’s top court concluded that his actions met that standard. Mr. Trump’s allies — as well as even some of his critics — tend to argue that “insurrection” is hyperbole. Still, the special counsel, Jack Smith, did not include inciting an insurrection in the charges he brought against Mr. Trump in connection with his attempts to stay in office. Mr. Trump has argued that all his actions were protected by the Constitution, including the First Amendment. But other politicians have faced similar legal challenges in connection with the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, Trump’s, —, Trump —, Donald Trump, Pete Marovich, Mike Pence, Jack Smith, Marjorie Taylor Greene, “, Couy Griffin, Griffin, ” Organizations: Capitol, Trump, Electoral, Union, United, Capitol ., The New York Times, Justice Department, Washington, Mr Locations: Denver, United States, Georgia, New Mexico, New Mexico’s Otero County

☆ A Ruling for Trump on Eligibility Could Doom His Bid for Immunity
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-08 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his colleagues seemed ready on Thursday to start to rebuild the court’s reputation by presenting themselves as unified and apolitical. He has had a bumpy ride of late, what with the leak of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, an inconclusive investigation into that breach, a lonely concurrence in the decision itself and ethics scandals followed by a toothless code meant to address them. All of this has contributed to dips in the Supreme Court’s approval ratings, as large segments of the public have increasingly viewed it as swayed by politics rather than committed to neutral principles and the rule of law. Judging by the justices’ questions in arguments on Thursday over former President Donald J. Trump’s eligibility to hold office again, they will rule that Mr. Trump can remain on the primary ballot in Colorado and on other ballots around the nation — and by a lopsided, if not unanimous, vote.

Persons: John G, Roberts Jr, Roe, Wade, Donald J, Trump Locations: Colorado

☆ What Happens Next in Trump’s Supreme Court Case on His Eligibility.
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-08 | by ( Adam Liptak | More About Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

It usually takes the Supreme Court about three months after an argument to issue a decision. The biggest rulings tend not to arrive until late June, no matter how early in the term the cases were argued. But the case argued Thursday is different, and the nation can expect a prompt ruling. The question, Mr. Trump’s lawyers told the justices, “urgently require this court’s prompt resolution.”Lawyers for the six Colorado voters who challenged Mr. Trump’s eligibility asked the court to rule by Sunday, the day before the state mails primary ballots. But the court may well act before the Super Tuesday on March 5, when Colorado and 14 other state hold their presidential primaries.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, “ Organizations: Colorado, Sunday Locations: Colorado

☆ Supreme Court Backs Biden in Dispute With Texas Over Border Barrier
▼ + stars: | 2024-01-22 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Monday, allowing federal officials to cut or remove parts of a concertina-wire barrier along the Mexican border that Texas erected to keep migrants from crossing into the state. The ruling, by a 5-to-4 vote, was a victory for the administration in the increasingly bitter dispute between the White House and Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, an outspoken critic of President Biden’s border policy who has shipped busloads of migrants to northern cities. Since 2021, Mr. Abbott, a third-term Republican, has mounted a multibillion-dollar campaign to impose stringent measures at the border to deter migrants. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal members to form a majority.

Persons: Biden, Greg Abbott of, Abbott, John G, Roberts Jr, Amy Coney Barrett Organizations: White Locations: Texas, Greg Abbott of Texas, Biden’s, Rio, Mexico

Search resuls for: "Adam Liptak"

25 mentions found