QUEST FOR JUSTICE - The Jeffrey Epstein Case

IMHO:  May Jeffrey Epstein burn in Hell.

"Despite Epstein’s death, his accusers vow their fight for justice endures" PBS NewsHour 8/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  When accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail, some of his alleged victims reacted with outrage that he had robbed them of the chance to face him in court.  But more than a dozen of Epstein’s accusers told their stories to a federal judge in Manhattan on Tuesday instead.  Amna Nawaz talks to The Washington Post's Renae Merle about what the women shared.

ONE ON ONE - Preet Bharara

"Preet Bharara on how Trump is eroding faith in law enforcement" PBS NewsHour 3/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump often expresses disdain for law enforcement agencies investigating him.  The Southern District of New York has attracted particular ire, with Trump firing the U.S. attorney heading it in 2017.  Judy Woodruff talks to that U.S. attorney, Preet Bharara, about his new book, “Doing Justice,” how the justice system was intended to work and whether its credibility is being jeopardized.

KINGPIN ON TRIAL - Trial of 'El Chapo'

"The ‘remarkable’ courtroom revelations in trial of ‘El Chapo’" PBS NewsHour 1/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Joaquín Guzmán, commonly known as the Mexican drug lord “El Chapo,” is on trial in federal court in New York City for running a multimillion-dollar narcotics operation across the United States border.  Keegan Hamilton of VICE [News] joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss El Chapo's violent legacy as head of the Sinaloa drug cartel, how the FBI eventually tracked him down and the dramatic courtroom revelations.

FEDERAL COURT RULING - Kentucky's Medicaid Work Requirements

"A ruling against Kentucky’s Medicaid work requirements could affect other states" PBS NewsHour 9/1/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A federal judge recently ruled against Kentucky’s work requirement for Medicaid recipients after it became the first state to impose the policy.  The judge called the mandate “arbitrary and capricious” in a decision that could have an impact on other states looking to implement a similar policy.  Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University, joins Hari Sreenivasan.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/10/2017

"Shields and Brooks on immigration ban court defeat, Democrats' confirmation hearing opposition" PBS NewsHour 2/10/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including the decision by a federal appeals court to deny the Trump administration's request to reinstate an immigration ban, President Trump's comments attacking judges and the contentious battles in the Senate over Cabinet nominees.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who joins us tonight from Chicago.

And we welcome both of you.

So, before we talk about the immigration — the president's immigration order, Mark, which the court, appeals court, rejected the administration argument on last night, we have a short clip of what President Trump has just said a little while ago on Air Force One as he was flying from Washington down to South Florida to Mar-a-Lago.

Reporters were asking him what he plans to do now.

Here's that clip.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:  We will win that battle.  But we also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand-new order.

QUESTION:  (OFF-MIKE)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:  Could very well be.  But I like to keep you — I would like to surprise you.  We need speed for reasons of security.  So, it could very well be that we do.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, Mark, he says, “I like to surprise you.”

How big a setback is this for the president?

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  It's a significant setback, Judy, in large part because it was self-inflicted.

They made mistakes, including green card holders, which weakened their argument completely, and made them vulnerable to the court's decision.  And it reflected, more than anything else, a sense of chaos and a sense of incompleteness and a sense of lack of thoughtfulness in the administration on an enormously serious issue.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  David, how do you see it?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Well, first, on that last clip of Trump on the plane, his staff is briefing reporters in somewhat of a chaotic manner in just the last few minutes.  People are saying, oh, they are going to just take it to the Supreme Court, they're going to rewrite it.

And the two different briefings are contradicting each other.  And that's something The Times reporters have been talking and tweeting about publicly, which is some of the White House staff is in a high state of misery because of the general lack of — chaos.

On the larger issue of the travel ban, our friend Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post I think put it pretty well.  I'm not sure it's illegal, but it's extremely stupid.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of judges overruling Presidents on national security matters.  Nonetheless, so whether it's unconstitutional or not, I leave to others.  But it certainly has sucked the wind out of two or three weeks of this administration for no good reason.

There has never been evidence that people from these countries are disproportionately likely to commit terrorist acts.  We have sent chaos to the airports.  We have offended the world.  We have derailed the administration.  We have done it in such an incompetent way, the administration has, that people with perfectly legal residence have been widely inconvenienced.

And so it's just been a screw-up from beginning to end, and so it's just been a running derailment.

TRUMP AGENDA - The Travel/Immigration Ban

"How both sides see the legal challenge on Trump's travel ban" PBS NewsHour 2/6/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A Constitutional showdown is underway over President Trump's controversial executive order on immigration.  In Seattle, a federal judge issued a temporary halt to Trump's travel ban, resulting in an appeal from the Justice Department.  John Yang gets two takes on the legal arguments from Washington state Attorney General Robert Ferguson and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

JOHN YANG (NewsHour):  Now to the constitutional showdown over President Trump's executive order on immigration.

For the first of two looks at what's at stake, we are joined first by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson from Seattle.  It was his suit that led to this weekend's temporary shutdown of the ban.

Attorney General Ferguson, thanks for joining us.

BOB FERGUSON, Washington State Attorney General:  Thanks for having me on.

JOHN YANG:  If you — if the court lifts this ban, lifts the temporary restraining order, will you appeal to the Supreme Court?

BOB FERGUSON:  Well, to be crystal clear, I will use every tool I have to make sure that this unconstitutional executive order doesn't stand.

That said, we're confident the Ninth Circuit will affirm what Judge Robart, who was appointed, of course, by President George W. Bush, will affirm his decision to grant that TRO.

JOHN YANG:  I assume you're anticipating if he does keep it in place that the Justice Department will take it to the Supreme Court.  What's your sense of how your chances would fare on the current court?

BOB FERGUSON:  Well, I feel very confident.

As I mentioned, Judge Robart is a very serious, well-respected judge appointed by President George W. Bush.  And he took the significant step of granting a temporary restraining order.  There's a high hurdle for a lawyer to meet in a courtroom to get a judge to grant a TRO, a temporary restraining order.

So, given that and the fact the Ninth Circuit declined to give an emergency stay a couple nights ago, we feel confident with our case not just at the Ninth Circuit, but frankly all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, if that's what it comes down to.

"Intent of Trump's immigration order questioned in appeals court" PBS NewsHour 2/7/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A federal appeals court heard arguments on Tuesday whether to override a lower court on President Trump's executive order on refugees and immigration.  How did the attorneys lay out their cases and what's at stake?  Audie Cornish speaks with Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal.

"Why the 9th Circuit Court rejected Trump's immigration ban appeal" PBS NewsHour 2/9/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A federal appeals court has refused to reinstate President Trump's immigration order in a unanimous decision on Thursday.  Mr. Trump called it "a political decision" and tweeted, "SEE YOU IN COURT."  Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal joins Judy Woodruff to offer a recap of what the judges concluded and what's next for the Trump administration's case.

ELECTIONS - Impact of Ruling on Voter ID Laws

"Impact of appeals court ruling against No. Carolina voter I.D.  laws" PBS NewsHour 7/29/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A federal appeals court has struck North Carolina's stringent voting rules that, among other things, required voters to show I.D. before voting.  “The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the judges said.  The Justice Department and the NAACP had sued the state's legislature.  William Brangham talks with Kareem Crayton, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Now, another major ruling about voting laws that could impact the upcoming election.

A federal appeals court today struck down several of North Carolina's voting rules, ruling that they were intentionally designed to discriminate against black voters.

William Brangham has the latest.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM (NewsHour):  Before we get to the ruling, a bit of background.

Three years ago, the GOP-controlled legislature in North Carolina changed the voting rules in their state.  They passed stricter voter I.D. requirements, and cut back on things like early voting and same-day voter registration.  Those were reforms Democrats had put in place years before.

But today's ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said that those changes discriminated against black voters.  The court said — quote — “The new provisions target African-Americans with almost surgical precision,” and that these voting rules impose cures for problems that didn't exist.

Joining me now to wade through all the implications of all this is Kareem Crayton.  He is a visiting professor of law at Vanderbilt University.

Professor Crayton, thank you.

This is a very sweeping ruling by the court today.  The court basically argued that the state of North Carolina intentionally discriminated against voters.  I mean, that's a pretty rare finding, isn't it?

KAREEM CRAYTON, Vanderbilt University:  That's true.

In the modern era, most of these cases get litigated under a concern about the effects of the law, whether they were disproportionately affecting one group or the other.

This is one where the court went so far as to say that the purposes for which this law was adopted were those that prohibited — were prohibited by law, that they were racially discriminatory and targeting African-Americans in a way that the law doesn't permit.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  What was it specifically that the court found so troubling?

KAREEM CRAYTON:  Well, there were a number of circumstances under which this law was adopted that raised some serious suspicions.

First, there was the adoption of the law on the heels of a United States Supreme Court ruling, Shelby County vs. Holder, which had a number of protections against any discrimination or to allow for any discrimination protections for African-Americans, and North Carolina quickly rushed through this statute.

In addition to that, the legislature had information in front of it identifying those avenues for participation that African-Americans disproportionately tended to take advantage of.  And when you look at the kinds of things that the new law prescribed or restricted, they really cleverly matched up with those areas, those avenues that African-Americans used more often than not.

And I think the selectivity, of these restrictions ultimately raised the specter of discriminatory intent.  So, taking all of that into account, in addition to the fact, of course, that North Carolina has a pretty long history of discrimination with respect to race, and the court found more recent evidence of discrimination in the redistricting cases, this court was willing to say that there was a pretty strong claim that the purposes for this statute were some of the same considerations that were behind the 14th Amendment's prohibition of assuring that states shouldn't take race into account in creating new laws.

HEALTH CARE - Affordable Care Act Conflicts

"Will conflicting federal health care law rulings head to the Supreme Court?" PBS NewsHour 7/22/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Now conflicting court rulings on the health care law.

The federal court of appeals based in Washington ruled today that the law doesn’t allow policy holders who get their insurance through the federal exchange to qualify for subsidies that would reduce the cost.  But a separate ruling, issued hours later by a federal appeals court in Richmond, said those getting policies through the federal exchanges do qualify for the subsidies.

The rulings come down to different interpretations of the same passage of the law.  Congress said if a state didn’t create its own insurance exchange, the federal government should.  But the law also reads that subsidies be provided by — quote — “an exchange established by the state.”

Just 14 states, plus the District of Columbia, created their own exchanges.  Five million enrollees now receive subsidies through the federal exchange.

So, what do these conflicting rulings mean for the future of the health care law?

For that, we turn to Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News and Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog.com.

Let’s go back to the root of this challenge, Julie.  Why did this come up?