As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders former President Donald Trump's potential disqualification from again being commander-in-chief, scholars and groups with wildly divergent views agree on this: If the justices take the easy route by deciding the case on narrow grounds, they'll put the nation and their own reputations on the road to ruin.
One of them just went to federal prison, and another famously beat a federal indictment. One has been seeking the White House, and another has been steering a BigLaw powerhouse. Each was among the two dozen attorneys who litigated President Bill Clinton's historic impeachment trial 25 years ago this month and then saw their lives go in dramatically different directions.
A conservative-led campaign against the 40-year-old doctrine of judicial deference to federal regulators appeared vulnerable at U.S. Supreme Court arguments Wednesday to predictions of a litigation tsunami, as justices fretted about an onslaught of suits and politicization of the federal judiciary.
When 2024 began, the U.S. Supreme Court's docket spanning abortion, guns, social media, the modern regulatory system and more already seemed certain to shake up the nation's cultural and economic landscapes. But now there's also a showdown involving Donald Trump and America's constitutional bedrock, auguring a truly tectonic term.
Jones Day lawyers are leading a GOP condemnation of former President Donald Trump's bombshell disqualification from Colorado's 2024 ballot for allegedly "engaging in insurrection" at the U.S. Capitol, warning the U.S. Supreme Court that the exclusion "threatens to thwart the democratic process."