Trump tries to use his presidential immunity to avoid personal legal troubles
President Donald Trump and writer E. Jean Carroll are once again engaged in a legal battle over whether a Supreme Court ruling granting him significant criminal immunity also protects him from paying damages for defaming Carroll. In 2019, Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her decades earlier, leading to a defamation lawsuit. While he publicly and repeatedly denied the allegation, calling her accusations a "hoax,” a New York City jury found Mr. Trump liable for defamation, awarding Carroll $83.3 million in damages. Mr. Trump appealed, arguing that presidential immunity should shield him from such damages. Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta A. Kaplan, countered that Mr.Trump's statements were personal and not related to official presidential duties, meaning immunity should not apply in this case.
The legal dispute also touches on a broader question of presidential immunity, particularly in the wake of a Supreme Court decision protecting Trump from prosecution related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump’s defense maintains that the immunity should extend to his personal statements about Carroll, but Kaplan strongly disagrees, stating that this was an instance where immunity should not apply. The case is still ongoing in the federal appeals court for the Second Circuit, despite the resolution of other criminal cases against Trump in multiple states, including a conviction in a hush-money case. Trump’s legal team has maintained that immunity should dismiss all claims against him in the Carroll lawsuits.
In addition to the defamation case, Trump faces a sexual abuse lawsuit from Carroll, stemming from an alleged 1990s incident in a New York department store. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse but not rape, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages. This was separate from the defamation case, which arose from comments Trump made about Carroll’s 2019 accusations. A January 2024 jury found Trump liable for defamation again, resulting in the $83.3 million judgment. The ongoing legal battles highlight the tension between claims of presidential immunity and accusations of personal misconduct, with both sides preparing for further appeals.
Federal Funds freeze affects most vulnerable groups
The Trump administration's recent executive order to pause all federal assistance sparked widespread concern, with potential disruptions to a range of programs and nonprofits. According to a memo from Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., this funding freeze could affect numerous areas, including small business loans, veterans' care, nutrition assistance for low-income Americans, military service members, medical research, and emergency preparedness. Nonprofits such as the American Public Health Association and the Main Street Alliance, which represents small businesses, are among those suing over the pause, arguing that it threatens vital services across the country.
Legal experts have raised concerns that this action violates federal law, particularly the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits presidents from canceling spending already approved by Congress. The act requires the president to seek congressional approval before withholding any funds, and Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck has suggested that even the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would likely reject the move. The lawsuit centers on the Administrative Procedure Act, with critics questioning whether Trump’s memo is legally permissible.
However, after causing swift chaos and confusion about how the freeze would impact Americans’ everyday lives, the Trump Administration rescinded the order, citing a lack of vetting by officials before the order was sent.
What happens to women if RFK Jr is confirmed?
On the first day of his confirmation hearing to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. firmly aligned himself with former President Donald Trump's stance on abortion, stating that "the states should control abortion." This marked a stark shift from his previous, more pro-choice positions during his campaign. Kennedy, who had once supported a woman's right to make decisions about abortion, now echoed Trump’s view that abortion is a tragedy and that state governments should decide the legality of the procedure.
Kennedy also expressed support for Trump’s efforts to restrict access to late-term abortions and protect "conscience exemptions" for healthcare providers who object to performing abortions. He emphasized his commitment to ensuring that medical professionals who believe abortion is morally wrong should not be forced to participate in the procedure. Additionally, Kennedy pledged to investigate the safety of mifepristone, the abortion pill, and consider limiting telemedicine access to it, despite multiple studies confirming its safety and the FDA's approval of the drug since it went on the market 25 years ago.
Kennedy's remarks have sparked backlash, particularly from progressives who have criticized his shifting stance on reproductive rights. New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan challenged Kennedy on his inconsistency, accusing him of abandoning his core values for political gain. Kennedy, however, defended his position, stating that he would implement President Trump’s policies on abortion if confirmed as the head of Health and Human Services, further deepening his alignment with the current administration.
Commentaires