New York ran a fair and efficient trial as the Supreme Court stalls.


[link removed]

What is left to say about the criminal conviction of Donald Trump?

Watching the verdict on television with my Brennan Center colleagues, I was moved by how normal it felt. What a radically democratic thing a jury is — extraordinary power placed in the hands of 12 randomly chosen citizens. By all accounts the jurors worked diligently and well. Judge Juan Merchan, too, did an admirable job under exceedingly difficult circumstances. Think of other judges who lost control of high-profile cases (the O. J. Simpson murder trial comes to mind). Skilled lawyers represented Trump, though they flailed given the facts and the dictates of their client. Prosecutors were professional and effective. And Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg deserves the kudos he has received not just for skill but for courage and character. Trump will appeal, as he has a right to do.

In a dingy courtroom off Foley Square, in a criminal justice system too often marred by injustice and unfairness, the rule of law prevailed. All of which stands in stark contrast to the Supreme Court in its “marble palace” on First Street in the capital.

Never, ever forget: Trump’s bid to stop the peaceful transfer of power was one of the biggest and worst acts in American history. He faces the most significant trial in our country’s history, too (Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth not having survived to face a jury). It was last summer when a grand jury indicted Trump on tight, damning federal charges.

And it was last year when Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to confirm that the case could continue. The justices refused to act. They waited first for an appeals court to hear the case . . . then consider it . . . then draft an opinion. Then, instead of quickly affirming that unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal after all — and to schedule the argument for the last hour of the term. “We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch intoned

[link removed]

.

Soon the justices will decide. Perhaps we will hear eloquent oratory. “No man is above the law.” “A president is not a king.” But by delaying as they did, the justices gave Donald Trump the time that he so badly desires. They ensured that Trump will likely not face a federal jury before the election. (And they may parse matters so that some charges stay, others go, the trial court judge will need to take months to sort it out, and the clock will tick.)

The immunity case, however resolved, is already one of the Supreme Court’s most egregious political interventions in history.

The Court’s credibility continues to plunge. We now know that Justice Samuel Alito flew the flag of the insurrection outside his home just days after January 6. (Permit me to ignore the fiction that this is all the fault of his wife in a dispute with neighbors, a tale debunked

[link removed]

by Jodi Kantor in the New York Times.)

Alito’s explanation for why he won’t recuse is now an inadvertent classic. “My wife is fond of flying flags,” he wrote

[link removed]

. It will be a major part of Alito’s legacy, although it probably won’t be carved in marble alongside aphorisms by Oliver Wendell Holmes or John Marshall.

Trump’s backers now make plain their expectation. On Fox News, House Speaker Mike Johnson urged the justices to “step in

[link removed]

” to overturn the New York case, presumably before any appeal is even filed. “I think that the justices on the court — I know many of them personally — I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they’ll set this straight.”

Johnson knows the Court cannot do that. But he may have articulated a truth that would have been familiar to members of Tammany Hall and other political machines: “A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge.”

The Manhattan trial reminds us of the importance of state courts guided by state laws and state constitutions. They are an independent xxxxxx of freedom and equality. At the Brennan Center we are working to lift them up. We aim to kindle a national legal movement to bolster state constitutional law. The New Yorker just published an exciting article

[link removed]

describing our work and a thrilling conference we held earlier in the year that brought judges, scholars, and advocates together at NYU School of Law. There’s more to come. And you can follow all the developments in state constitutional law at our robust State Court Report

[link removed]

website and sign up

[link removed]

to receive the State Court Report newsletter.

We are plenty critical of a criminal justice system that too often fails, especially when it comes to people of color. Let’s cherish the moments when the system works. And let’s never forget that, in plain sight, suffused by cynicism, corrupted by politics, the highest court in the land is failing to meet that same essential test for justice.





What’s Next in the Trump Legal Saga?

Our latest live virtual event featured a discussion of Trump’s New York conviction, its implications, and how his defense could serve as a blueprint in the three remaining prosecutions. The conversation, moderated by Brennan Center Justice Program Senior Director Lauren-Brooke Eisen, features Georgetown law professor Paul Butler, University of Alabama law professor and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, and Brennan Center President Michael Waldman. Watch it on YouTube

[link removed]

or listen on Spotify

[link removed]

, Apple Podcasts

[link removed]

, or your favorite podcast platform

[link removed]

.

Enforcing AI Guardrails

As the United States spends billions to implement artificial intelligence, it needs to develop effective and thoughtful limits on its use. The White House should lean on its budgetary and management powers to address systemic risks and potential harms created by AI use, Amos Toh and Ivey Dyson write for Just Security. They “identify the resource and oversight gaps that are likely to persist despite these efforts, and the steps Congress should take to close them.” READ MORE

[link removed]

Unreliable Data to Disqualify Voters

Florida’s director of elections has encouraged local officials to investigate the eligibility of 10,000 registered voters on a list compiled by an election denial group using unreliable data. Such ill-considered challenges do not comply with Florida law. “It should be the task of professional election officials to update voter rolls — not vigilantes — and they should do so using reliable official information in a way that safeguards the fundamental right to vote,” writes Alice Clapman. Read more

[link removed]





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: What Originalism Means for Women

[link removed]

Wednesday, June 12, 3–4 p.m. ET



In a few short years, the Supreme Court has upended American law, pursuing a regressive agenda cloaked as a return to the Constitution’s supposed original meaning. The Court’s embrace of originalism poses special risks to women. The 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, exemplifies this threat. The majority failed to grapple with how legal and cultural gender norms have shifted since the founding era. A case in the current term, United States v. Rahimi, is built entirely around the fact that domestic violence was not a crime in the 18th century, taking originalism to its logical but absurd end at the expense of women.



Join us virtually for a panel discussion with Madiba K. Dennie, author of the new book The Originalism Trap

[link removed]

; Khiara M. Bridges of UC Berkeley School of Law; Emily Martin of the National Women’s Law Center; and Alicia Bannon of the Brennan Center and State Court Report. They will explore the 2023–24 Supreme Court term through the lens of what it means for half the population. RSVP today

[link removed]



Produced in partnership with the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Alicia Bannon on the Supreme Court ethics crisis // Time

[link removed]

Michael Li on the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding gerrymandered maps // MSNBC

[link removed]

Mike Milov-Cordoba on abortion cases in state supreme courts // Los Angeles Times

[link removed]

Dan Weiner on the need to regulate deepfakes // NPR

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]