House Dems try to bring accountability to SCOTUS

 

6/7/2024

House Democrats try to bring more accountability to the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of another scandal. Former 2020 Trump campaign attorneys likely won’t be litigating November’s election due to the consequences of their actions. And a right-wing distributor pulls a popular election conspiracy film — and apologizes — as a defamation lawsuit moves forward.

National Democrats try to reign in the nation’s highest court

In the wake of another controversy surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court, a group of congressional Democrats are pushing a new bill that would establish an investigative body within the Court to investigate alleged ethical improprieties and report its findings to Congress. The proposal introduced Tuesday would also establish an ethics counsel to advise justices on ethics requirements, including recusal and disclosure requirements, according to a press release from Rep. Dan Goldman’s (D-N.Y.) office. Goldman and three other lawmakers, including fellow New York Democrat and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler are sponsoring the bill that they say would provide transparency and accountability after recent incidents raised ethical concerns about some members of the Court. Last month, Justice Samuel Alito rebuffed calls to recuse himself from any Jan. 6 or 2020 election-related cases after the New York Times revealed that his household flew political flags in two separate incidents — one was a “Stop the Steal” flag that was seen flying at his Virginia home days after the riot at the U.S. Capitol; the other was a flag linked to Christian Nationalism that was spotted at his New Jersey vacation home. The report sparked calls for Alito to recuse himself — specifically from the Trump immunity case that awaits a decision from the Court. But Alito refused, stating that it was his wife who flew the flags, not the justice. In a letter explaining his decision, he cited the code of conduct the Court adopted last year that has no enforcement mechanism. Last year, a bombshell ProPublica report revealed that fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose that he received lavish gifts and perks from billionaire and Republican donor Harlan Crow. The report sparked the same calls that followed Alito’s incident. “Our nation’s highest court is facing an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy because there is no enforceable code of ethics and no accountability to the fundamental norms required of all other judges,” the release for the bill stated.

Consequences mount for Trump 2020 lawyers — and more is expected

In a twist of irony, some of former President Donald Trump’s most ferocious legal defenders in the 2020 election will potentially be barred from practicing law by this fall’s election. In the years since the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, stemming from repeated lies about voter fraud pushed by Trump and his allies, a number of former Trump attorneys have faced criminal charges, been suspended from practicing law for a period of time or are at risk of losing their license indefinitely due to disbarment recommendations from disciplinary boards. Last week, for instance, a disciplinary board for the Washington, D.C. bar recommended that Rudy Giuliani lose his license to practice law in Washington, D.C., for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The board specifically highlighted Giuliani’s involvement in a case that alleged without evidence that election fraud took place in multiple Democratic counties in Pennsylvania. The recommendation isn’t an order; that will come from the D.C. Court of Appeals, which governs professional attorney conduct. Giuliani had earlier testified before the board’s committee that he did the best he could do “under the circumstances” and that he was “shocked and offended” by the proceedings. He also pointed to his distinguished career in public service, including as New York City’s mayor during the Sept. 11 attacks. But Giuliani failed to persuade board members. In fact, the board’s committee found that his misconduct transcends his past accomplishments. In a disciplinary case against another close 2020 ally, John Eastman, a California judge ruled in March that he should be disbarred. Eastman, whose efforts to overturn the 2020 election result played a role in the events of Jan. 6, was also temporarily suspended from practicing law in Washington, D.C. in May. That same month, a Colorado court handed down a three-year suspension to Jenna Ellis, another attorney who helped push the Trump campaign’s fake elector scheme.

Our bestselling tie-dye tee is back! Now in two colors, you can show your love for democracy and support for our work all summer long. SHOP NOW

Salem pulls ‘2000 Mules’ election conspiracy film — and apologizes

A documentary that captivated conservatives across the country with its conspiracies about ballot fraud in the 2020 election will no longer be distributed, as a defamation lawsuit filed by a man who was featured in the film moves forward. Right-wing multimedia company Salem Media Group said in a statement that it has removed “2000 Mules” from Salem’s platforms and that Salem will no longer distribute the film or the book that it’s based on. The film released in May of 2022 was written and directed by right-wing political commentator Dinesh D’Souza and spreads disinformation in a false narrative about ballot fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The film used video footage to portray a Georgia man, Mark Andrews, as a “mule” who “illegally deposit[ed] ballots into drop boxes” — Andrews says he was legally dropping off ballots for himself and his family. In October of 2022, Andrews sued Salem, D’Souza and right-wing group True the Vote, Inc., for defamation over his depiction in the film. He alleges in his federal lawsuit that the film continues to portray him as a “criminal mule” despite being publicly exonerated by the Georgia Bureau of Investigations and Georgia State Elections Board back in May of that year. The film became hugely popular among Republicans, sparking concern at the time that it could contribute to the spread of election disinformation during the midterm elections, just as Trump and other Republicans’ rhetoric did in 2020. Last week, Salem Media issued an apology to Andrews. “We apologize for the hurt the inclusion of Mr. Andrews’ image in the movie, book, and promotional materials have caused Mr. Andrews and his family,” the statement said. “We have removed the film from Salem’s platforms, and there will be no future distribution of the film or the book by Salem.” On Tuesday, a federal district court approved the removal of Salem as a defendant in the defamation case, but the case remains active.

OPINION: Donald Trump Is Plotting His Next Crime

Last month, Donald Trump became the first former U.S. president to be convicted of felony crimes after a New York jury found him guilty of 34 counts in connection with a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election. As Americans reflect on the outcome of the New York trial, Marc Elias writes, “we should pause to acknowledge that history was tragically derailed by Trump’s felonious conduct.” Read more here.

We now offer an annual option for our premium subscription! BECOME A MEMBER Our premium subscription ensures that our team of 14 can do the hard work of keeping you informed and up to date on what is happening to our democracy in courtrooms across the country. Consider joining today for $120/year ($10/month) to receive our premium content directly in your inbox, starting tomorrow morning with Marc's weekend reading list.

What We’re Doing

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has been under fire lately for conduct outside the courtroom, but his actions on the Court are far more important. In a sharp analysis, Democracy Docket’s Madeleine Greenberg breaks down Alito’s judicial philosophy and his recent opinion in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP. Read more here.

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee have filed their second lawsuit attacking mail-in ballots in Nevada. This time, they’re asking a state court to reject mail-in ballots that arrive by the ballot receipt deadline but lack a postmark — something voters have no control over. Watch the YouTube video here.