Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. And thanks to Jessica Levinson for guest writing last week’s recap on Donald Trump’s New York sentencing. This week was packed with legal news ahead of Trump’s inauguration Monday — so let’s jump right in.
TikTok lost its Supreme Court battle against a U.S. ban that’s set to start Sunday, but it still might win the political war. The justices rejected a First Amendment challenge from the popular social media app, citing national security fears of Chinese control. But the app’s fate is unclear as Trump returns to the White House with an apparent openness to keeping TikTok alive. In a video posted to the app after the ruling, TikTok CEO Shou Chew — who’s expected to attend Trump’s inauguration as an honored guest — praised the president-elect for his “commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States.”
The First Amendment also featured in a SCOTUS hearing this week involving pornography. Texas is defending a state law requiring age verification to access sexual content online, and the adult industry raised a free-speech challenge. One of the more memorable lines from the hearing was Justice Samuel Alito asking how the popular website Pornhub compares to the old Playboy magazine. We expect a ruling by July in the case with vast implications for constitutional rights.
The justices added a new batch of appeals to review, including a case about LGBTQ-themed books. The case brought by a religious rights group asks the court to resolve a contentious question: “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?”
And we finally got to see Jack Smith’s report — the volume on the federal election interference case, anyway. Attorney General Merrick Garland released that part of the special counsel’s report, and one interesting aspect was Smith’s explanation for not alleging insurrection. A conviction under that charge could have disqualified Trump from office. But of course, the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, which Smith subtly critiqued in his report, would have blocked a trial on any charges before the election.
Smith’s classified documents volume is still secret. That’s partly because Garland agreed to shelve it while the Justice Department tries to revive charges against former Trump co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. The legal concern is that it could unduly prejudice defendants who might still face a jury trial. Recall that Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the documents case last year, and DOJ withdrew its appeal to revive Trump’s charges after the election, due to a federal policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. While public release of the report isn’t imminent, Cannon presided over litigation this week about whether Garland can share it secretly with select members of Congress, a matter that prosecutors argued is none of the judge’s business. Nonetheless, she held a hearing Friday and was reportedly skeptical of DOJ’s urgency to share the report with Congress.
Meanwhile, congressional Democrats urged Garland to drop the case against Nauta and De Oliveira, so that the public can see the full documents report. In the likely event that Garland doesn’t do that, Trump’s DOJ will start off in the awkward position of pressing an appeal that, if successful, would restore charges for the purpose of moving toward a trial that would center on the president’s alleged criminality surrounding national defense information and obstructing justice. (He pleaded not guilty in all four of his criminal cases, with the only one of them that went to trial, in New York state court, resulting in a conviction.)
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.
So don’t be surprised if the Trump DOJ withdraws the classified documents appeal. Department leadership is set to be stacked with his personal lawyers, as attorney general pick Pam Bondi faced questions at her confirmation hearing this week about her independence (or lack thereof) from Trump. Among other things, she had trouble conceding directly that Trump lost the 2020 election. Republicans appear poised to confirm her to the top cop post.
However compliant Trump’s DOJ would be in the Nauta/De Oliveira matter (among others), he could also kill the case himself with pardons. As President Joe Biden this week set a clemency record for nonviolent drug offenders, the pardon gap between Biden and Trump grew starker ahead of Trump’s return. One of the many outstanding clemency questions is what he’ll do with the Jan. 6 cases, in which he has vowed widespread relief.
But how many Jan. 6 defendants (if any) will Trump pardon? And how quickly? We’ll revisit those and other clemency questions as Trump’s second term gets underway, with New York City’s indicted Democratic mayor, Eric Adams, flying to meet Trump in Florida on Friday.
Speaking of Trump and pardons, a huge story in the legal community this week was the indictment of legendary lawyer and SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein. The federal tax indictment in Maryland tells a cinematic story of the renowned attorney playing high-stakes poker around the globe and failing to pay taxes back home.
And what, you might wonder, does that have to do with Trump and pardons? Back in November — right after Trump’s election win — Goldstein wrote a New York Times op-ed arguing for “abandon[ing]” the president-elect’s criminal cases. I thought it was an odd piece at the time, and I wrote my own response explaining why I thought so. But in retrospect, was the lawyer positioning himself for clemency?
That’s just one data point supporting the possibility, but here are two more. Goldstein is represented by lawyers who’ve also represented Trump, John Lauro and Christopher Kise (in a statement, they said they’re “deeply disappointed that the government brought these charges in a rush to judgment without understanding all of the important facts. Our client intends to vigorously contest these charges and we expect he will be exonerated at trial”). And finally, there’s the timing of the charges. Is it a coincidence that the indictment came just days before the Trump DOJ takes over? Stay tuned.
Have any questions or comments for me? I’d love to hear from you! Please email deadlinelegal@nbcuni.com for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.
