U.S. Supreme Court
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Fulton County Jail / Fulton County Sheriff’s Office
President-elect Donald Trump was officially sentenced in federal court to an unconditional discharge in New York, after the Supreme Court denied his last-ditch appeal.
On Friday morning (Jan. 10), Donald Trump became the first person to officially be a convicted felon who will serve as president of the United States. The president-elect was sentenced to an unconditional discharge by the U.S. District Court Judge Juan Merchan in New York City, having lost his emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision on Thursday night (Jan. 9). The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to deny Trump’s appeal, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson composing the majority vote.
Trump and his lawyer, Todd Blanche, virtually attended the sentencing from Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida.
Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, reiterated the details of the conviction that Trump received last May in the “hush money” trial. Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to hide their affair. Steinglass blasted Trump for his stream of attacks, saying that he deems himself above the law. “This defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm’s way,” Steinglass stated.
Trump was allowed to speak, and as expected, he claimed he was unfairly convicted in a rambling speech for 10 minutes. “This has been a very terrible experience. I think it’s been a tremendous setback for the system and New York,” he began. He would go on to say that his winning the presidential election showed the conviction was unjust. “I was treated very, very unfairly, and I thank you very much,” he concluded. Judge Merchan then began to speak, laying out the reasons for his decision citing the “unique and remarkable set of circumstances.”
The judge noted that “Donald Trump the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump the criminal defendant” would not have had the same punishment and reminded him that his upcoming presidential term shielded him from the more serious consequences, which made Trump visibly wince according to reporting from the courtroom. He then issued the sentence of an unconditional discharge, meaning that Trump would not receive jail time or be fined, and wished him “Godspeed” before concluding the hearing.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: The Washington Post / Getty
Donald Trump has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to block the sentencing for the hush money case before it takes place at the end of the week.
On Wednesday morning (Jan. 8), Donald Trump made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in the hush money case in New York City. “This court should enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York trial court,” the application from his legal team read, “to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government.”
Trump was convicted last May on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records related to payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, whom Trump had an affair with. The payments were made through Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, in 2016 before his election to the White House later that year. Trump is scheduled to appear in federal court Friday (Jan. 10) before District Court Judge Juan Merchan, 10 days before he is sworn in as president. Merchan has signaled that he may not give Trump any fines or jail time. Still, the sentencing would solidify Trump’s entering office with the dubious distinction of being a convicted felon.
Trump’s defense hinges on the polarizing ruling made by the Supreme Court last June that said that former presidents did have broad immunity for their past actions. His lawyers also argued that his status if fully sentenced would hinder his abilities as president. “In fact, the prospect of imposing sentence on President Trump just before he assumes office as the 47th president raises the specter of other possible restrictions on liberty, such as travel, reporting requirements, registration, probationary requirements, and others — all of which would be constitutionally intolerable under the doctrine of presidential immunity,” they wrote.
The Supreme Court has directed its prosecutors from the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to answer the motion by 10 a.m. Thursday (Jan. 9). The previous appeal in New York was denied on Tuesday (Jan. 7), prompting Trump’s lawyers to file an emergency appeal to that state’s highest court and the Supreme Court simultaneously.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Fulton County Jail / Fulton County Sheriff’s Office
Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity to dismiss his hush money conviction were struck down by the presiding judge in New York, dealing him a temporary loss.
On Monday (Dec. 16), New York District Court Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Donald Trump cannot use presidential immunity as a reason to overturn his felony conviction in the “hush money” election interference case. The decision is a blow to the president-elect weeks before he is set to return to the White House and comes after he has already seen several wins in other court cases against him.
“The People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the executive branch,” wrote Judge Merchan in a 41-page document detailing the ruling. Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to covering up an affair he had with adult film star Stormy Daniels, which was overseen by his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, who paid Daniels $130,000. Trump would eventually repay Cohen.
The ruling is not the definitive ending to this case. Judge Merchan has paused sentencing in the case several times, and prosecutors have signaled that they wouldn’t stand in the way of putting the case on hold until after Trump has served his time in office. While the conviction does carry a potential sentence of up to four years in prison, Judge Merchan can uphold the conviction but not impose any prison time or any other punishment. Trump can also argue for the conviction to be thrown out if he chooses to take it to the conservative Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor concerning presidential immunity in June.
Representatives for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg declined to comment. Steven Cheung, a spokesman for President-elect Trump, called the decision “a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity,” adding: “This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Two Democratic lawmakers requested that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas be criminally investigated for ethics and tax law violations.
According to reports, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Ron Wyden of Oregon sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland formally requesting that he appoint a special counsel to criminally investigate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for his failure to disclose lavish gifts from wealthy friends who happen to be donors to Republican-backed causes.
“We do not make this request lightly,” the senators wrote in their letter, dated July 3. “Supreme Court justices are properly expected to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to comply with the federal tax code.”
They specifically asked that the special counsel look into whether Justice Thomas violated federal ethics and tax laws by failing to reveal as income that he received a luxury recreational vehicle with a forgiven debt of $267,000. A representative for Justice Thomas didn’t respond to press inquiries.
The letter goes on to state that Thomas had “repeated opportunities” to explain why he didn’t disclose these gifts to the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee’s panel overseeing federal courts which Wyden and Whitehouse chair, respectively. Thomas’ actions demonstrate a “willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws,” and they added,
“No government official should be above the law.”
The letter’s publication comes after Justice Thomas was revealed in January to have received substantial gifts from donors such as Harlan Crow in the past such as premium tickets to sporting events and luxury vacations. Thomas’ attorney, , wrote that his client’s earlier disclosure to the committees “fully complied with all judicial disclosure rules on this matter.” Thomas has also come under fire due to his wife, Ginni Thomas’ involvement in efforts to help overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Arizona for Donald Trump.
The request also comes as Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez filed a motion to impeach Justice Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday (July 11). In her statement, the New York congresswoman wrote that both men’s refusal to recuse themselves from cases “in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements” has led to an “unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court.”
—
Photo: Getty
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Chip Somodevilla / Getty
A new finding has disclosed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to reveal three more trips paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow.
On Thursday (June 13), the Senate Judiciary Committee released documents that revealed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose that he had taken three additional trips on the private jet belonging to billionaire Harlan Crow. The documents were acquired by Democrats on the committee, and they show the details of the trips – one to Kalispell, Montana near Glacier National Park in 2017, one from Washington D.C. to his hometown of Savannah, Georgia in March 2019, and one to Northern California in 2021.
“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information – like what we’ve revealed today – and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a statement. A lawyer for Justice Thomas said that he has “fully complied” with a new disclosure requirement from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts from last year that compelled judges to disclose all gifts. In a statement, he felt these trips “fell under the ‘personal hospitality exemption’ and was not required to be disclosed by Justice Thomas,” said Elliott S. Berke. A representative for Harlan Crow, Michael Zona, said that the Texas billionaire provided the committee with “information responsive to its requests going back seven years.” Zona also confirmed that as a result of providing the information, the Committee agreed to end its probe into Crow’s actions.
The revelations have added more controversy and outrage over the unethical behavior of Thomas and fellow Supreme Court Justice Thomas Alito by accepting such lavish gifts from Republican donors throughout the years, as observers note that each donor had special interests in cases that came before the court. It’s led many to demand that there be a stronger code of ethics for the Court with more punitive effects, noting that the code adopted by the highest judicial body in the land at the end of last year was too weak.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Pool / Getty
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was caught on a recording admitting to having a strong bias against the Left in his views.
On Monday (June 10), documentary filmmaker Laura Windsor released a recording in a post on X, formerly Twitter, of a conversation with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito which captures him expressing that he has a bias against the Left wing of the nation and feeling the U.S. should go back to a “place of godliness.” The conversation took place at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner which was held last week. Windsor can be heard asking Alito about political polarization in the audio. “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the Left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor says. “I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”
“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.” Windsor then followed up her words to Alito with another statement: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you. I agree with you,” Alito replied. Alito was responsible for authoring the infamous Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court in 2022, which reversed five decades of established law settled by Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Windsor also posted a recording of her talk with Chief Justice John Roberts, who disagreed with Alito’s viewpoints. When pressed by Windsor if he felt the court should rule to guide the country on “a more moral path,” Roberts responded: “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”
The justice has recently come under intense scrutiny after it was revealed that he flew a flag supporting the false claims of Donald Trump that the 2020 presidential election was stolen outside of his homes in Virginia and New Jersey. He has refused to recuse himself from all cases related to Trump and the January 6 insurrection.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: MANDEL NGAN / Getty
Another Supreme Court Justice is under fire for photos showing a US flag at his home as a sign of support for Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court is the subject of another controversy – this time courtesy of conservative Justice Samuel Alito. On Thursday (May 16), a published photograph of his home in Alexandria, Virginia showed an American flag that flew upside down – a universal signal of distress co-opted by supporters of former President Donald Trump and his “Stop The Steal” false claims. That same flag style was spotted among those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The photo showed that the reverse flag flew at Alito’s home on January 17.
The photograph is also significant because, at the time, the Supreme Court was weighing in on a case from Pennsylvania concerning the 2020 presidential election which saw Alito in the losing minority of the decision. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito said in a statement emailed to The New York Times after the report was published. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” The report did say that Alito’s wife, Martha, had been involved in a dispute over a neighbor’s anti-Trump sign on their lawn. “It might be his spouse or someone else living in his home, but he shouldn’t have it in his yard as his message to the world,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia. Alito has been a contentious figure on the court, with his leaking of the ruling overturning the landmark Roe V. Wade decision concerning abortion a nagging issue.
The bombshell report from the Times caused shockwaves among many observers and scholars, who stated that such a move undermines any credibility that Alito has in ruling on upcoming cases involving Trump. Those cases include the Supreme Court determining if Trump has immunity for his actions – which are being argued as incitements to insurrection – concerning what took place on January 6th. It adds to more chaos surrounding the court, as Justice Clarence Thomas has refused to recuse himself despite his wife Ginni Thomas’ direct involvement with efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: MANDEL NGAN / Getty
A scathing report shows that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was ready to quit over low pay before taking gifts from conservatives.
According to reports, the controversy around Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is growing more turbulent as it was revealed that he had a conversation with a Republican lawmaker over 20 years ago that he would step down if he couldn’t get a higher salary. The conversation occurred between Thomas and former GOP Representative Cliff Stearnes after both attended a conservative conference in Georgia in 2000, with Thomas saying “one or more justices will leave soon.”
“I intend to look into a bill to raise the salaries of members of The Supreme Court,” Stearns said in a letter to Thomas afterward. “As we agreed, it is worth a lot to Americans to have the Constitution properly interpreted.” At the time, Thomas’ salary as a Justice was $173,000 but he had a substantial amount of debt and was frustrated as he also had a young grandnephew to raise without seeing any potential for a raise. His contemplation left many Republicans who counted on Thomas’ right-wing jurisprudence in the Court concerned. “His importance as a conservative was paramount,” Stearns told a reporter when contacted. “We wanted to make sure he felt comfortable in his job, and he was being paid properly.”
Thomas has been under fire in recent months as it was discovered that he was lavished with luxury vacations and other pricey gifts from conservative millionaire benefactors such as Harlan Crow, who was found to have bought three properties from the Supreme Court Justice (including his mother’s house) and paid for his grandnephews’ private school education. Both Crow and Thomas have consistently denied any impropriety, but the revelation stained the reputation of the Supreme Court further as many viewed it to be acting predominately in the interests of the right wing, particularly with the decision in the Dobbs case pushed through by Justice Samuel Alito last year.
The past allegations against Thomas compelled Justice John Roberts to “fairly, impartially, and diligently” call for a code of ethics for the higher court, spurred on by the demands of Democratic lawmakers. It also comes as these lawmakers have been calling for Thomas to recuse himself from hearing the upcoming criminal case against former President Donald Trump for his alleged role in provoking the events of the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Alex Wong / Getty
A new explosive report finds that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas attended at least two high-profile summits held by the secretive Koch donor network.
According to reports, Thomas attended two events held by the network, formally known as Stand Together and overseen by Charles and David Koch. He didn’t disclose being at these events to a judicial ethics committee. Among the events the judge attended was a private dinner in Palm Springs, California, in 2018, which saw him arrive thanks to a private Gulfstream G200 jet. Thomas’ presence put him in the “extraordinary position” of acting as a “fundraising draw,” breaking numerous federal rules that prohibit judges from engaging in political activity such as fundraising.
The new reports comes after it was discovered that Thomas was the recipient of luxury vacations from real estate billionaire Harlan Crow and other rich corporate benefactors. In addition, Crow (who was also found to be a collector of Nazi memorabilia) was also found to have paid tuition for a child Thomas was raising as his son in addition to buying Thomas’ mother’s house. He also attended 25 years worth of the all-male retreats known as the Bohemian Grove, which includes all of the most important political and corporate figures in the world.
The news of Clarence Thomas attending the top-tier donor events is staggering considering how much the Koch brothers (David Koch died in 2019) and other conservative donors have impacted the decisions of cases that have come before the Supreme Court within the last 15 years – some at their behest. The habitual disregard for the ethics laws in place includes Thomas not having disclosed any of these vacations and other gifts as required.
“What we’re seeing emerge is someone who is living his professional life in a way that’s seeing these extrajudicial opportunities as a perk of the office,” said Charles Geyh, a judicial law expert at the University of Indiana’s law school, according to ProPublica. The news leaves the justice’s impartiality further in doubt. “Parties litigating in the court before Justice Thomas don’t know the extent of Thomas’ relationship with the parties on the other side,” said Hofstra University law professor James Sample. “You have to be pretty cynical to not think that’s a problem.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
CLOSE
Source: Anna Moneymaker / Getty
The Supreme Court struck down affirmative action programs in two cases presented before it, leading to a torrent of outrage over the unprecedented actions.On Thursday (June 29th), the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision ruling that the affirmative action policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University were unconstitutional. The verdicts dealt a blow to five decades’ worth of efforts to boost more diversity through programs taking applicants’ race into account when applying to colleges and universities nationwide for decades. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the programs “unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, the Black conservative who sided with the majority including Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Comey Barrett, and Samuel Alito, wrote in his concurring opinion that the policies “fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution. He continued: “Despite the extensive evidence favoring the colorblind view, as detailed above, it appears increasingly in vogue to embrace an ‘antisubordination’ view of the 14th Amendment: that the Amendment forbids only laws that hurt, but not help, Blacks,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Such a theory lacks any basis in the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.”The decision caused immediate backlash and concern from those opposed to the decision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had recused herself from the Harvard case as she served on their Board of Overseers prior to her SCOTUS appointment, wrote a blistering and incisive dissenting opinion aimed at Thomas and Roberts’ opinions. “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote, “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”
As the news sunk in, more reactions including that of President Joe Biden came forth condemning the ruling and expressing the effects it will have in the future. Here’s a selection of the more prominent.
1. Michael Eric Dyson
The esteemed professor and author took the conservative Thomas to task, noting his own rise to the court through affirmative action and calling his role in the verdict “a withering betrayal of justice & democracy.”
2. uché blackstock, md
Well-known for her efforts to boost diversity in medical schools and her work to get more attention paid to Black communities by the medical industry, Dr. Blackstock pointed out how the decision will affect applicants from the community going forward.
3. Michael Harriot
Writer and contributor to The Grio, Harriot reminds readers who will truly benefit from the decisions handed down.
4. Deepa Iyer
The author and activist highlights the dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
5. Olivia Truffaut-Wong
The journalist observes with dismay how Asian students who took part in the lawsuit leading to these cases brought before the Supreme Court unwittingly played into white supremacy.
6. Nikole Hannah-Jones
The creator behind The 1619 Project mused about how this decision falls in line with the worst of American history.
7. Joyce Vance
The former federal prosecutor under the Obama presidential administration called attention to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion, particularly the opening.
8. Melissa Murray
The New York University law professor highlights another part of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, and explains how she pointed to the court’s conservative majority being so eager to overturn precedent.
9. Barack Obama
Former President Barack Obama weighs in and amplifies former First Lady Michelle Obama’s statement.
10. President Joe Biden