Frozen Embryos Are “Children,” Alabama Supreme Court Rules

On Friday, February 16th, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision made by one of the state’s circuit courts (Mobile County Circuit Court), ruling that cryogenically preserved embryos are classified as “children.” 

In 2022, three couples filed a lawsuit against the Center for Reproductive Medicine in Mobile, AL under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, suing on the grounds that the clinic’s negligence had “wrongfully” killed their child.

One of the fertility clinic’s patients had somehow gained access to the cryogenic storage room, and when the freezing temperature of the embryo tube burnt their hand, they dropped the embryos onto the floor, killing them. The couples claimed that since the fertility clinic had “allowed one of its patients to leave from his or her room in the Infirmary’s hospital area and access the cryogenic storage area,” they could sue for wrongful death.

The original decision made by the county circuit court had stated that cryopreserved embryos were not considered “people,” and thus the lawsuit was dismissed because the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act did not cover embryos outside the womb.

However, the Alabama Supreme Court disagreed with the ruling, overturning it 8-1 on Friday. Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in the Court’s decision that the Wrongful Death of A Minor Act “applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation. It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy.” 

The Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building in Montgomery, home to the Alabama Supreme Court.

As we learned in class, Alabama’s Supreme Court decision is a clear example of judicial restraint, in which judges will limit the exercise of their discretion and keep to the language of the law as much as possible. The Court restricted its own power, refusing to add age limitations to the Act, prioritizing instead the original intent and wording of the law. Since the Act doesn’t specify that an embryo is not a minor or that embryos are not protected under the law, then the lawsuit is applicable, according to the Court. 

The Court’s ruling mirrors the recent pro-life state policy changes after the overruling of Roe v. Wade, in which Alabama legislators immediately banned abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is threatened or put at severe risk. Additionally, Alabama’s own state constitution explicitly outlines the rights of “unborn” children: “It is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life… Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion” (Alabama Constitution of 1901, Art. I, Sec. 36.06). 

Many fertility clinics and medical institutions in Alabama warn against the consequences that the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision will have on medical procedures that involve embryos, such as in vitro fertilization, where egg cells are fertilized in a lab, and the embryo is placed into the mother’s womb. The procedure allows people with fertility issues or genetic disorders to have children and start their own family.

The Medical Association of the State of Alabama states that “the increased exposure to wrongful death liability would – at best – substantially increase the costs associated with IVF. More ominously, the increased risk of legal exposure might result in Alabama’s fertility clinics shutting down and fertility specialists moving to other states to practice fertility medicine.”

In Alabama, a deeply conservative state, most reproductive health clinics either shut down or have shifted away from abortions entirely after the fall of Roe v. Wade, instead focusing their sights on family planning and contraception. The personhood laws enacted in multiple states post-Roe v. Wade can also affect IVF procedures now that the rights of embryos are protected and the usage of embryos is becoming the subject of legal controversy. 

112 million US residents face at least a 3.5-hour drive to the nearest clinic | CNN Analysis

Medical professionals fear that fertility clinics, similar to abortion clinics, may become scarce if IVF and other embryo-related procedures become legally restricted. In states like Alabama where the lack of reproductive health clinics is already at a crisis-level high, the effects of such Court decisions and pro-life legislation can have heavy consequences on the future availability of comprehensive reproductive healthcare.

Sources:

https://mynbc15.com/news/local/alabama-supreme-court-rules-in-vitro-embryos-are-children

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-ruling-frozen-embryos-children_n_65d29a77e4b043f1c0aba2b9

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/29/alabama-abortion-clinic-problem-00096020

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2024/02/frozen-embryos-are-children-alabama-supreme-court-rules-in-reviving-couples-wrongful-death-suits.html

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2022/04/frozen-embryo-not-a-child-mobile-judge-rules-in-throwing-out-wrongful-death-claim.html

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-access-by-state/index.html

Emily Ren 

Trump's Plans for Sweeping Abortion Restrictions

Trump, who has so far avoided taking a stance on abortion, recently privately expressed support for a 16-week national abortion ban, with exceptions only for rape, incest, or to save the mother's life. With this position, he seems to be hoping to appease the conservative Republicans without alienating independent or more moderate voters, although the flippancy with which he treats such an important right -- as a political bargaining chip and nothing more -- is quite off-putting: “Know what I like about 16? ... It’s even. It’s four months," he said in a private conversation. 

As appalling as it sounds to implement a nationwide restriction on abortion, it's important to know that a 16-week ban wouldn't actually have much of an affect on the state of abortions right now -- almost 94% of abortions take place before 13-weeks of pregnancy according to the CDC. Plus abortion is currently banned before or at 16 weeks in 20 states. However, as Trump's remarks implied, there's also no real medical reason for a 16-week ban (15-weeks has been called for by many anti-abortion activists), and many scans and tests for rare but potentially fatal conditions in fetuses take place after this mark. 

Trump speaking at a rally (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-campaign-scrambles-abortion-ban-report-democrats-16-weeks-rcna139223)

Also, while many countries do not allow abortion after 16 weeks -- the US is currently one of about a dozen that do -- these laws have very broad and much more flexible exceptions for a variety of reasons, like mental health or economic challenges. The bans currently in place in the US, however, do not -- for example, a few months ago, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a court order allowing Kate Cox to obtain an abortion. Cox was pregnant with a baby with trisomy 18, a rare condition where there is no live birth in about 70% of pregnancies (not accounting for the potentially short life-spans of babies who are born alive). She was frequently in and out of the emergency room, and doctors had declared that carrying the baby to term would have serious consequences to her health and ability to have more children. This is just one example of the strictness of US abortion bans, the likes of which Trump seems to support.

Trump has held off on publicly expressing his opinion prior to gaining the nomination according to the Times, so the fact that he's consistently and pretty obviously has a large margin on Haley has probably encouraged him to be more open about these ideas. He has historically been pretty inconsistent about supporting or opposing abortion, previously criticizing DeSantis's six-week ban in Florida. His campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has officially stated that he has not committed to a national abortion ban, and that he'd be willing to “sit down with both sides and negotiate a deal that everyone will be happy with.” (Which is pretty ironic given how little negotiating has been happening, the lack of which has been due, at least in part, to Trump's influence, in Congress). 

The status of state abortion laws in the US as of 1/12/2024 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2023/nov/10/state-abortion-laws-us)

Beyond the nomination, however, Trump will have difficulty with abortion policy on the national stage as well -- nearly two-thirds of Americans disproved of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (which was largely made possible due to Trump's three appointed justices), according to a CNN poll, and most do not support a national ban. The Democrats and Biden's campaign have been taking advantage of this issue in their campaign, and it seems to have hurt Republicans in elections as well. Plus, it just doesn't seem right (to put it lightly) for someone to take such a dismissive view on an issue that affects millions of lives and use it for their own political gain. 

This goes to show how the Supreme Court, as we've learned in this unit, can and does have an influence on politics, and that their decisions, while missing the actual power of implementation, can open the door for legislators to take action. Plus, the overturning of Roe v. Wade also exemplifies the concerns many have about the undemocratic nature of the nomination process for justices, as the fact that Trump alone was able to choose three justices seems to highlight. 

Sources:

• https://apnews.com/article/abortion-federal-ban-trump-2024-election-61c3edcd3780ce94be3bd8d65f100f23
• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.html?searchResultPosition=1
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-campaign-scrambles-abortion-ban-report-democrats-16-weeks-rcna139223
• https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/17/politics/biden-democrats-attack-trump-abortion-report/index.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/us/politics/trump-abortion-ban.html?searchResultPosition=4
• https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-privately-favors-16-week-national-abortion-ban-new-york-times-reports-2024-02-16/
• https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/16/trump-16-week-abortion-ban-00142007
• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/upshot/trump-16-week-abortion-ban.html?searchResultPosition=3
• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/22/upshot/abortion-us-roe-global.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/16/trump-16-week-abortion-ban-exceptions-report
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/16/democrats-trump-abortion-report/
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-16/trump-tells-allies-he-backs-16-week-abortion-ban
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/02/16/trump-prefers-nationwide-16-week-abortion-ban-in-private/?sh=34a2e212551f
• https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22122830/abortion.pdf
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2023/nov/10/state-abortion-laws-us

Supreme Court Declines to Prevent West Point From Using Affirmative Action

Affirmative action, simply defined as efforts to provide educational or employment opportunities to historically marginalized groups, has long been a controversial topic. Affirmative action was first initiated around the period of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to improve opportunities for African Americans, and today beneficiaries include a variety of minority racial groups, women, and disabled individuals. Although proponents of affirmative action appreciate the opportunities it provides socioeconomically or historically disadvantaged individuals, it is often at a detriment to those not included, which adversaries find discriminatory. Because Americans’ wishes for diversity and opposition to being judged or held to different standards due to their skin color conflict, various interest groups have popped up on both sides of the debate.

Public opinion poll from Pew Research Center

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), founded in 2014, is one that appeared on the conservative side. They have frequently challenged race-based admission in schools, though their most notable achievements may be their successes with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, which overturned precedent (Grutter v. Bollinger) and banned affirmative action in college admissions. The Supreme Court had held that both Harvard and UNC race-conscious admissions process violated the Fourteenth Amendment, namely the equal protection clause. 

SFFA president Edward Blum at a rally one day before the trail of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action, they have held a different standard with the United States Military Academy West Point. Last month, SFFA sued West Point and requested the Supreme Court to stop their race-conscious admissions process on the basis of the inconsistency, but was denied. However, the Supreme Court had purposefully made military academies exempt from the 2023 ruling, due to “potentially distinct interests” there may be to consider applicants’ races. Because West Point is a "vital pipeline to the officer corps" (Department of Justice), their admissions strive to keep the officers as diverse as the enlisted personnel. Currently, there are some disparities, as Black and Hispanic representation among officers is only half of that of active personnel (11% to 20.2% and 9% to 18% respectively). 

Although affirmative action in college admissions and in military academies are essentially the same thing, the difference in outcomes comes down to strict scrutiny. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (and UNC), the schools were unable to prove their race-conscious admissions served a “compelling governmental interest”, as well as employed racial stereotypes and failed to offer specificities. West Point, on the other hand, seems able to provide evidence supporting the necessity of affirmative action on their admissions. Regardless, as of now, the Supreme Court is leaving the case open to possibility.

Sources:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-immediately-block-west-point-considering-race-a-rcna136527
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-military-academy-west-point-can-continue-consider-race-admissions-judge-rules-2024-01-03/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/discrimination-society
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199

Secretary of Homeland Security Impeached

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, was recently impeached (after a failed first attempt on February 6, 214-216) by an extremely close 214-213 vote in the House. He is the first cabinet secretary to be impeached since William Belknap in 1876. 

The vote was essentially divided along party lines, as all 214 votes for impeachment were from Republicans and all but three of the 213 votes in opposition were Democrats (the three Republicans that voted against impeachment stated that his actions were not severe enough to warrant an impeachment), whereas the Democrats were united in their opposition (two Democratic representatives were unable to vote due to COVID-19 and a delayed flight--had either voted, the impeachment would have failed again). House majority leader Steve Scalise proved critical, returning from cancer treatment to vote for impeachment after missing the previous attempt. 

Alejandro Mayorkas. (https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/explore-agency-history/commissioners-and-directors/alejandro-mayorkas)

Democrats argue that the standards of impeachment written in the Constitution, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," were not reached, and that actions as severe as impeachments should not be used to express differences in political ideology and opinions about policy. Senate majority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, said that House Republicans "failed to present any evidence of anything resembling an impeachable offense," and President Biden condemned the impeachment as well.

Republicans in favor of the impeachment blame Mayorkas for the current state of immigration, including the influxes that have overwhelmed states like Texas and even cities not near the border like Chicago, New York, Boston, and Denver. Mark E. Green, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee where the impeachment originated (not the House Judiciary Committee where impeachments typically begin, as we've learned in class) stated that their investigations "demonstrated beyond any doubt that Secretary Mayorkas has willfully and systemically refused to comply with the laws of the United States, and breached the public trust." The two charges against Mayorkas include replacing Trump-era policies like Remain in Mexico and violating the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 by implementing a "catch-and-release" system, as well as breaching public trust by misrepresenting the state of the border.

The three Republicans that voted against impeachment, from left to right: Ken Buck, Tom McClintock, and Mike Gallagher. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-vote/index.html)

As we've seen in the past months, impeachments have become much more commonly used as political weapons, although convictions, which we've learned require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, are much rarer. The charges against Mayorkas have been called "dead on arrival" in the Senate, which has a Democrat majority, due to this high bar. As a result, many have questioned whether this is a publicity stunt by the Republicans, who may be hoping to draw attention to immigration, which has emerged as a prominent concern ahead of the presidential election this year, in order to build support for Trump and his much more aggressive stance on immigration policy (if not for political motives, why impeach Mayorkas after Republicans recently refused to support a bill with much more restrictive immigration measures?). Additionally, some have suggested that this may be part of House Speaker Mike Johnson's effort to stabilize his position and appease Trump. This also relates to what we've recently covered in class about the balance between Congress and the bureaucracy and the role Congress plays as the "watchdog", although in this case, the check on power does not seem to be being used as intended. 

Political motives aside, it is definitely true that the border has been under a lot of pressure during the relaxed restrictions of the Biden administration. In 2022, the Border Patrol recorded 2.2 million illegal border crossings, a record amount (although previous numbers are considered extremely undercounted). However, while border policy has been very far from perfect and is definitely an extremely pressing issue, I'd be tempted to agree with the Democrats in that impeachment is not warranted. 

Sources :

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/us/politics/mayorkas-impeachment-house.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-second-house-vote/

https://apnews.com/article/mayorkas-impeachment-border-immigration-congress-3bff388c2f0d1cc718f43d901bc50690

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68286641

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-should-know-about-the-impeachment-of-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1230977868/house-impeachment-mayorkas-border

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/13/congress/mayorkas-impeached-house-gop-00141296

https://time.com/6590641/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-house-gop/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-vote/index.html

Trump Under Fire For “Unhinged” NATO Comments

Trump has a reputation for making claims and comments that may seem bewildering out of any other politician’s mouth, yet are somehow unsurprising when he says them—many of his quotes being overly exaggerated and incredibly controversial, garnering massive media attention. Aptly referred to as “Trumpisms,” his absurd lack of filter when it comes to his responses has recently struck again as Trump continues to build momentum for his campaign.

On Saturday night (February 10th), during one of his campaign rallies in Conway, South Carolina, Trump related a conversation between himself and who he said was a significant NATO ally, in which he stated that if a NATO member didn’t meet the defense spending guidelines, then he’d let Russia “do anything” to them.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump recounted. 

“‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?... No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills,’” he responded.

Photo from NBC News

Donald Trump speaking at his campaign rally in Conway, South Carolina

And while most of Trump’s comments generally aren’t a direct reflection of his policy beliefs, this comment stoked a large amount of angry responses, especially at a time when many European nations were worried about their own national security during the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Any perceived lack of commitment to NATO on the U.S. side could encourage more Russian overstepping of border boundaries. Many European leaders have criticized his statements:

“Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk,” NATO Secretary General Jan Stoltenberg said in reaction to Trump’s comments.

Photo from Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Jens Stoltenberg, left, speaks with Donald Trump during a NATO summit in 2018

The White House has even denounced his statements as “unhinged”: 

“Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability, and our economy at home,” said White House spokesperson Andrew Bates.

On the other hand, Florida Senator Marco Rubio on CNN’s “State of the Union” stated that others misunderstood Trump’s intentions. “That’s not how I view that statement,” he told host Jake Tapper. Rubio said Trump was simply using a story from his presidency to air his grievances about NATO. “He doesn’t talk like a traditional politician,” once again referring to Trump’s, well, Trumpisms.  

Initially created after World War II as a response to the growing power of the Soviet Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization now has 31 member states. Article 5 of the treaty states that an attack on any of the member states will be considered an attack on them all—this article was invoked after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. As for defense spending, NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of their GDP as a target figure, but it is certainly not a required amount. And while some nations do fall short of the guideline, they’ve been upping their spending, “with European allies and Canada increasing spending for eight consecutive years” (Politico). 

Trump has always been critical of NATO, claiming that it takes advantage of the U.S. military power and taxpayer money without giving anything in return, despite its involvement with U.S. military operations overseas post-9/11 and giving the U.S. ability to keep a close eye on other parts of the world (most notably Russia and China) through the military alliance. His denouncement of NATO and U.S. ties to the treaty can have profound effects on the current Russo-Ukrainian conflict and NATO’s attempts to keep Russia and China in check, especially if he is re-elected for a second term and withdraws from the organization, as Trump’s past national security adviser John Bolton says he might do.

Sources:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/11/trump-nato-remarks-democrats-putin-00140848

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/europe/trump-nato-putin-europe-analysis-intl/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/europe/trump-comments-reaction-nato-stoltenberg-intl-hnk/index.html#:~:text=In%20a%20statement%20Sunday%2C%20Stoltenberg,increased%20risk%2C%E2%80%9D%20Stoltenberg%20said.

https://cnn.com/2024/02/11/politics/rubio-trump-nato-haley-husband-national-guard-cnntv/index.html 

Emily Ren

Trump Appeals to Supreme Court for Temporary Halt on Ruling Rejecting Absolute Immunity

Last week, on February 6th, 2024, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judges unanimously agreed with a 57-page decision that Trump would be eligible to be prosecuted for alleged crimes he committed while in office. This is considered a win for special counsel Jack Smith, who is charging Trump on 4 criminal counts, including conspiracy and fraud. He wants to put Trump on trial for his attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential elections. Trump quickly decided to appeal to the Supreme Court as he is the top Republican candidate and is likely to rematch with Joe Biden in November, 2024.

Today, Monday, February 12, 2024, Donald Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to pause the appeal’s court ruling for criminal immunity. His lawyers claim their ruling is “a stunning breach of precedent and historical norms;” using the Constitution’s separation of power makes it so that the court cannot review the president’s official acts and that charges are only valid if Congress impeached the president. Although Trump was impeached twice during his presidency, the Senate acquitted him both times, meaning he can run for president again. However, the statement about the charges only being valid if the impeachment has succeeded is false, and the judges dismissed it as it lacked rationality and logic. They also said that allowing a previous president to face criminal charges would ruin the presidency and be a threat to democracy. The lawyers pleaded for the lower courts to consider Trump’s immunity further.

Yet, D.C. judges counter that accusation by writing, “Any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.” Although Trump was a president, his era has ended. He is now considered at the same level as any individual and subjected to criminal prosecution like anyone else; any protection he had when he was President no longer applies to him. It is to note that both liberal and conservative judges rejected Trump’s claims of immunity.

In hopes of preventing the proceedings, Trump requests the Supreme Court to grant a stay until the D.C. judges reconsider the ruling, an en banc review. An en banc is a French term used to describe a special procedure where all judges of that court, in this case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, hear a case. Trump’s application is still currently still on hold until the Supreme Court either accepts or rejects his grant. It takes 5 justices to grant a stay, 3 of whom were nominated by Trump himself.

Links:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/06/trump-is-not-immune-from-prosecution-for-bid-to-subvert-the-2020-election-appeals-court-rules-00139832

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/12/trump-immunity-ruling-supreme-court-00141034

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/12/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-delay-immunity-ruling-in-election-case.html                                                                                                                                                              - Jessica Xia

Biden Avoids Criminal Charges for Mishandling of Classified Documents

On Thursday, February 8, Special Counsel Robert Hur released a report on the status of the federal government's response to President Joe Biden's alleged mishandling of classified documents. Hur had been appointed Special Counsel of the Department of Justice by current Attorney General Merrick Garland on January 12, 2023, to oversee the Department's proceedings in response to the situation.

The first instance of classified documents being found in a space belonging to Biden occurred on November 2, 2022, when Biden's attorneys found a small collection of documents marked as classified in a "locked closet" while clearing out his offices at the Penn Biden Center, in which Biden had worked after completing his tenure as vice president under former president Obama. The attorneys promptly reached out to the office of the White House Counsel, allowing the found documents to be returned to the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration the following day. Three days after the statement of these findings was released, the White House confirmed rumors that had arisen of the presence of classified documents in the garage of Biden's home in Wilmington, Delaware. When asked by a reporter about the situation, Biden stated, 

"My Corvette is in a locked garage. OK? So it’s not like they’re sitting out in the street. But as I said earlier this week, people know I take classified documents and classified material seriously. I also said we’re cooperating fully and completely with the Justice Department’s review."

Special Counsel Robert Hur, appointed by Merrick Garland to oversee the investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents. During Trump's presidency, Hur was the top federal prosecutor in Maryland. (USA Today) 

As part of the updates included in the recent report, it is stated that Biden will not receive any criminal charges for the misplacement of the classified documents. This is a stark contrast from the state of former president Donald Trump's similar criminal proceedings that are occurring simultaneously -- Trump is under indictment for having resisted turning over classified documents he kept at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, a situation that led to the estate being raided for these documents by the FBI. Trump and other Republicans have been keen to use the investigation into Biden as an argument against his 2024 presidential campaign, while liberals on the opposing side argue that Trump has placed himself in an objectively worse position by resisting authorities and receiving criminal indictments by making more irresponsible decisions with his classified documents.

A focus of Hur's report that has gained wide media attention is Biden's capability of interacting with others and recalling vital information, especially due to his old age of 81. According to Hur, Biden's memory struggled greatly during his interviews with the special counsel's office, with Biden failing to remember when he ended his term as vice president or when his son Beau Biden passed away. 

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” the report stated.

Biden angrily responded to this criticism during his remarks on the report on Thursday, with reporters later noting the tense mood of the room at the time.

"How in the hell dare he raise that?" Biden questioned. "Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it was none of their damn business."

    Joe Biden delivers angered remarks in the White House on Thursday after Robert Hur's report alleges that he is significantly disabled by worsening memory as a result of his age. (CNN)

According to a CNN poll, 46% of Democrats raise Biden's age as a concern regarding his presidency. Although Biden will not be receiving criminal punishment for his mishandling of the classified documents found in his office and home spaces, the lasting effects of this investigation still remain to be seen in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. The events of the paralleling criminal proceedings involving former president Trump will also play a major role in his and Biden's reputations and approval over the coming months.

Sources:

• https://apnews.com/article/biden-classified-documents-age-trump-2024-4791639cc06cc0affee55aba80c7e6b3
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/us/politics/biden-documents.html
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/10/biden-special-counsel-report-crossed-line/72539550007/
• https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024
• https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-classified-documents-report-02-08-24/index.html

What really happened in the Nevada Republican primaries?

On Feb. 6, Nevada held both its Democrat and Republican primaries, and on Feb. 8, it held its Republican caucus. Nevada state law requires a primary election, but the Republican party decided to hold its own caucuses, which are meetings run by the party that only Republicans can attend. This decision makes the state-run presidential primary symbolic, as only the caucus winner will receive delegates from Nevada. One candidate cannot run in both the primary and caucus.

As we learned in class, caucuses require that a candidate have strong grassroots support in the state, as participating in a caucus takes more effort and time for voters. Many believe a caucus gives Trump an advantage over other candidates, due to his grassroots appeal and the loyalty of his supporters. 

Nikki Haley chose to participate in the primary, refusing to pay $55,000 to participate in the Nevada caucus, while Donald Trump chose the caucus. Thus, Haley had no opportunity to win delegates from Nevada. Republicans in Nevada felt disrespected by Haley’s choice, as it implies she does not care about winning their delegates. Haley barely campaigned in Nevada, saying she would “focus on the states that are fair.”

Photo from Associated Press

Nikki Haley speaks at campaign event in Los Angeles

According to NBC News, the primaries confused many voters, who prepared to vote in the Nevada primaries and did not see Trump’s name on the ballot. Additionally, Republican Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo publicly endorsed Trump and said he would vote for the option “none of the candidates,” which likely inspired other Trump supporters to vote for this option to show their support for Trump.

The “none of these candidates” option was added to the ballot by Nevada lawmakers in 1976 for all statewide races to encourage participation. Post-Watergate, voters were frustrated by their options, and this allowed them to continue voting while expressing that dissatisfaction. In these primaries, this option similarly allowed Trump supporters to participate in the primaries while expressing their discontent with the way the primaries were set up.

In the primaries, the “none of these candidates” option won with more than a 2-to-1 margin over Haley. Many view this loss as a significant blow to Haley’s campaign. In the caucus, Trump won all 26 Nevada delegates.

Photo from Associated Press

Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event in Las Vegas

In my opinion, what went down in Nevada speaks to the current political climate. It reveals the loyalty and dedication of Trump’s base to turn up for the primaries to symbolically vote with the “none of these candidates” option. This in turn exemplifies how people are able to express their discontent in a democratic system through voting in elections. 

Due to the way this system was set up, there was no competition for the Nevada delegates; Trump was set to win as he was the only major candidate on the ballot for the caucus. Competition is vital for democracy, so this set-up without competition seems undemocratic.

Furthermore, it accentuates the issue of organization for primary elections. Both the state and parties independently decide how they wish to organize the primary election, which can make the final process complex and incoherent. It was troublesome to see voters' confusion between primary and caucus and the candidate's choice. We discussed in class how complicated voting processes for the local, state, and federal government made voting less accessible. I believe this is dangerous for democracy, as confusing election processes deter political participation.

What do you think about these Nevada elections? Did each candidate make the best choice given their circumstances? What could be the impact of this turnout on future elections?

Sources:

• https://apnews.com/article/nevada-donald-trump-nikki-haley-none-candidates-d5ce36684eb7e41d7d2e74c6957e9196

• https://apnews.com/article/nevada-2024-presidential-primary-biden-trump-haley-d731bf8ab1e7d4a7379c07d3a37b581b

• https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-nikki-haley-republicans-california-primary-6bd5abd7776d8241556e5a085652c109

• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nikki-haley-losing-candidates-option-nevada-republican-primary/story?id=107013869

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/haley-loses-nevada-republican-primary-without-trump-rcna137367

• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-called-nevada-gop-primary-candidates-107013778

• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/us/politics/election-2024-information.html

Supreme Court Hears Landmark Case on Trump's Eligibility for the Ballot

Within months of the insurrection on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, spearheaded by avid supporters of then-lame-duck president Donald Trump, political scientists and commentators began to speculate on whether a little-known section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution could be used against Trump for his role in inciting the incident. The 14th Amendment, a Reconstruction amendment protecting citizens' fundamental rights and establishing due process, has gained light for its third section, a paragraph referred to colloquially as the 'insurrection clause':

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof...."

Due to the intention of the insurrection clause to bar individuals from office if they have engaged in "insurrection or rebellion," some have argued that Trump ought to be rendered ineligible for and removed from the ballots of the presidential primary and general elections in 2024. Trump's impeachment by the House of Representatives exactly a week after the incident on account of incitement of insurrection has provided a legal basis for proponents of this argument.

Former president Trump encouraging his supporters to march to the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, during the certification of Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election. (The Washington Post)

The arguments in favor of holding Trump accountable for his actions on January 6 under the insurrection clause ultimately culminated in the case Anderson v. Griswold in Colorado. Filed on September 6, 2023, and with its final decision released on December 19, the Colorado Supreme Court determined that Trump's speech and actions towards his supporters on January 6 constitute insurrection and that Trump is liable for punishment under the 14th Amendment, leading to his removal from the primary election ballot in Colorado.

Maine was quick to follow suit and move to have Trump removed from its primary ballot on the basis of the insurrection clause. But the decisions of both states have not come without swift objection from Trump and his legal team, who sued Norma Anderson and the others responsible for the initial suit of Anderson v. Griswold in a new case known as Trump v. Anderson, approved to be heard and pushed through by the US Supreme Court on January 5, 2024. On February 8, the case underwent oral argument, with the majority of justices displaying a notable lean towards Trump's point of view that he ought to remain on primary ballots.

During oral arguments on the afternoon of February 8, 2024, Trump's attorney Jonathan Mitchell speaks before the Supreme Court. (CNN, illustrated by Bill Hennessy)

“Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued towards an attorney representing Anderson. However, although Kavanaugh is a known conservative member of the high court, even liberal justices have proven skeptical of the reliability of the respondents' case and evidence. “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?” asked Justice Elena Kagan. Additionally, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal justice appointed by current president Joe Biden, noted an important point raised by Trump's representatives -- the lack of the word "president" in the provisions of the insurrection clause. “I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focused on the president,” she elaborated.

While the final decision of Trump v. Anderson remains pending, many citizens have already used such questions and statements by the justices of the Supreme Court to make the conclusion that the Court is poised to rule in Trump's favor, upholding his placement on primary election ballots nationwide. Some left-leaning citizens may be quick to shun a development like this as a purely political act by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, but there are also a number of liberal citizens who are not invested in the pursuance of the Trump v. Anderson case. “There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy,” California president Gavin Newsom explained, “but in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction.” Many theories and opinions such as these have already circulated and will continue to make their way into nationwide discussion, but of course, the final decision in this case remains yet to be determined.

Sources:

• https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/anderson-v-griswold/
• https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/release-colorado-supreme-court-decision-represents-a-win-for-colorado-voters-democracy-and-constitutional-accountability/
• https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-trump-ballot-colorado-02-08-24/index.html
• https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-02-08/supreme-court-trump-ballot-insurrection
• https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-719
• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-23/governor-newsom-on-trump-california-ballot