Category: Uncategorized

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a long-running dispute regarding a pair of Arizona voting laws that require Americans to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to vote. The justices granted the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) request to review an appeals court decision that found the state laws at issue were preempted by the…

The Supreme Court declined to hear Alan Dershowitz’s defamation appeal against CNN, marking the court’s latest refusal to reconsider the landmark 1964 press freedom ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan. 

The court has consistently declined to hear appeals seeking to weaken or overturn the precedent that makes plaintiffs who are public figures meet the demanding “actual malice” standard. Under that standard, plaintiffs must show the defendants’ knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, the falsity of statements they publish.

In line with the court’s typical practice, there was no explanation for Monday’s denial of Dershowitz’s petition. It takes four justices to grant review.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the denial, echoing their previous calls for the court to revisit Sullivan and the actual malice standard.

Dershowitz’s suit against CNN stemmed from his representation of Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial in his first term. The president was accused in 2019 of abusing his power by urging Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe Biden, against whom Trump would run in the 2020 election. (The Senate acquitted Trump in that trial as well as in his second impeachment trial, where he was accused of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection in a bid to subvert the election he lost to Biden.)

Dershowitz said CNN defamed him in its coverage of his statement about the scope of impeachable offenses. During the Senate trial, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked the longtime law professor, “As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?” Dershowitz responded, in part, that “if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”  

Among CNN’s coverage was a headline that said “Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable.” Anderson Cooper, an anchor for the cable news outlet, said Dershowitz was “essentially saying any politician … can do essentially whatever they want in order to get elected because it’s somehow in the public interest.”

Dershowitz complained about CNN’s coverage, and the network let him on air to explain his position. He still sued, alleging CNN intentionally omitted key parts of his statement. A Trump-appointed district court judge in Florida ruled against him, and a unanimous three-judge appellate panel (which included two Trump appointees) upheld the judge’s ruling.

“For a public figure like Dershowitz to prevail, defamation law has long required proof of a speaker’s actual malice: knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity of a statement,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit panel said. “But here,” it said, “the available evidence points to the reporters’ sincere — if mistaken or even overwrought — belief in the truth of their accusations.” The panel said Dershowitz presented “no evidence” to the contrary.

The circuit ruling sparked conflicting concurring opinions about the Sullivan precedent, which all three judges on the panel agreed mandated the outcome in CNN’s favor.

Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee who was on the president’s Supreme Court short list in his first term, wrote separately to explain her view of “the harm Sullivan has caused in our First Amendment jurisprudence.” She said there can be “little dispute” that CNN defamed Dershowitz “under any common understanding of that term.” Echoing Thomas’ criticism, she called Sullivan and subsequent related rulings “policy-driven decisions dressed up as constitutional law.”

Lagoa said those rulings have “left us in an untenable place, where by virtue of having achieved some bit of notoriety in the public sphere, defamation victims are left with scant chance at recourse for clear harms.” But she concluded that “until the Supreme Court reconsiders Sullivan, we are bound by it, and I therefore must concur.”

Going the other way, Clinton-appointed Judge Charles Wilson warned against pushing for reconsidering Sullivan. He urged “respect for unanimous Supreme Court precedent” and “the press freedoms that played a critical role in securing the civil rights many in this country hold dear.”

In his Supreme Court petition, Dershowitz cited Lagoa’s concurrence and said Sullivan has “morphed into an impregnable fortress that protects media irresponsibility while denying public figures any remedy for egregious misrepresentations.”

Dershowitz raised several legal issues that he wanted the justices to consider, including advocating that the actual-malice standard be “discarded altogether” or at least abandoned for public figures who, like Dershowitz, are private citizens as opposed to government officials. He noted that Sullivan protected criticism of such officials, but the protection was extended in subsequent cases to public figures more broadly. “Whatever arguments might exist for special protections for criticism of government officials do not extend to private citizens who happen to achieve prominence,” he argued in the petition.

Opposing high court review, CNN cited Wilson’s concurrence and gave the justices multiple reasons to stay out of the case. Among the network’s points was that Dershowitz didn’t even sue over “provably false statements of fact” but rather “opinions and interpretations that the First Amendment protects separately from Sullivan.” CNN noted that the justices have “repeatedly rejected invitations to overrule or modify the First Amendment’s actual-malice standard.”

The post Supreme Court declines to hear Alan Dershowitz’s defamation appeal against CNN appeared first on MS NOW.

Fox News issued an apology over the weekend for airing unsubstantiated claims made by businessman and television personality Kevin O’Leary alleging opponents of a data center project he is involved in are linked to China. “Kevin O’Leary appeared as a guest on the show on May 24 and discussed the ongoing controversy surrounding his planned…

The Supreme Court refused President Trump’s request on Monday to overturn a jury’s verdict finding him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and defaming her. It leaves intact the $5 million award that became a dominant prong of Trump’s personal legal troubles as he plotted his way back to the…

The Supreme Court declined to review President Donald Trump’s appeal in one of the cases in which writer E. Jean Carroll won a multimillion-dollar jury award against him.

The court’s action Monday concerned the $5 million in damages awarded by a New York jury that found the president abused and defamed Carroll, who had accused him of sexually assaulting her decades ago in the dressing room of a luxury department store.

The president argued that his appeal presented important legal issues regarding evidence. He complained that the trial judge wrongly allowed, among other things, the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape in which he bragged about grabbing women by their genitals. He said the New York-based federal appeals court’s approval of the tape’s admission conflicted with how other federal appeals courts handle evidentiary issues.

Carroll opposed review, writing that Trump’s “entire petition” to the justices was based on the “misstatement of fact” that she falsely accused him of sexual assault. And she argued that Trump failed to raise any legal issues warranting the court’s attention.

It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. As usual, the court did not explain the rejection. No justices noted any dissent from the denial.

The court acted on the petition Monday after putting off considering it for several months and then finally doing so at the court’s June 25 private conference.

Trump has a separate pending appeal against Carroll regarding the $83.3 million award she won against him, which one of his lawyers said he would also be petitioning the justices to review. That lawyer, Justin Smith, said in a June 2 letter that Trump expects to file his second petition to the justices “within the next month.” Since filing that letter, Smith was confirmed as a federal appeals court judge, and another lawyer at his firm is now listed as lead counsel on the Carroll docket. That new lead lawyer, Michael Martinich-Sauter, did not answer an MS NOW inquiry that asked when exactly the president’s second Carroll petition will be filed. 

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 the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Supreme Court denies review in one of Trump’s E. Jean Carroll appeals appeared first on MS NOW.

The Supreme Court refused to hear President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn a jury’s finding that he sexually assaulted and defamed writer E. Jean Carroll.

Britain’s Jack Draper says he is “devastated” after withdrawing from Wimbledon because of the arm injury which has stopped him playing for most of the past year.

Two sisters were all smiles after allegedly stabbing a woman to death on a busy Texas street in broad daylight. Police in Del Rio say 21-year-old Kitty Mia Diaz and her 19-year-old sister, Amaya Cookie, along with their friend, 21-year-old Kyandra…

Comcast Co-CEO Brian Roberts sought to downplay the scenario that the media giant will be primed for dealmaking once it splits into two companies next year. “Absolutely not,” Roberts said in response to the M&A question during an investor call this morning. “This is the right move to put each company in the strongest position […]

Pope Leo XIV has become a popular political figure, with his opposition to Trump’s policies and his emphasis on Christian values of concern for the poor, refugees, and peace, resonating with voters and potentially impacting the upcoming midterms.

As last week got underway, the Republican-led House easily passed a landmark housing bill on a 358-32 vote, following a similarly lopsided 85-5 vote in the GOP-led Senate. The stage was literally set for the most important bill signing ceremony of the year, right up until Donald Trump threw a tantrum, scrapped the plans and prioritized an anti-voting bill that lacks the support to pass.

In the days that followed, however, there was some question as to where things stood, exactly, with the housing bill (formally known as the 21st Century ROAD to Housing bill).

On Thursday, Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan, the chair of the House Republican Conference, said the bill was on Trump’s desk. As it happens, that wasn’t quite right: Speaker Mike Johnson said he would send the legislation to the White House, but he’d wait until this week got underway.

“I’m going to send the bill over to him on Monday, and it will become law,” the Louisiana Republican told Fox News.

If we assume that the House speaker does as he promised, there are five possible outcomes — and despite Johnson’s prediction, there’s still some ambiguity as to which will actually happen.

Trump could sign the bill: At that point, the process will be complete, albeit one week later than expected.

Trump could kill the bill with a veto: The president hasn’t publicly suggested that he’s prepared to take such a step, but he hasn’t closed the door on the possibility, either.

Trump could veto the bill, only to have Congress override him: The lopsided vote totals in the House and Senate suggest the bipartisan proposal has more than enough support to clear the two-thirds threshold needed to override the president. That said, many GOP members remain Trump loyalists, and it’s far from clear whether they would ignore his wishes and vote in a way that would be seen by the White House as a slap in the face to the president.

Trump could let the bill become law without his signature: The Constitution dictates that a president has 10 days (not including Sundays) to sign or veto a bill once it reaches his or her desk. If a president chooses to do neither, the legislation automatically becomes law.

Trump could go with a pocket veto: The 10-day rule has always applied, though it comes with a catch. If Congress is adjourned when the 10 days run out, and the president still hasn’t acted, it doesn’t become law. Rather, it’s vetoed as part of a tactic known as a “pocket veto.”

That said, even this is more complicated than it might seem. As The New York Times summarized, “There are legal questions about whether this would happen during a congressional recess — when the chambers are out of session temporarily, as the House and the Senate are scheduled to be for 10 days beginning on July 3 — or only when Congress is adjourned at the end of a session, which will not happen until the end of the year.”

Which of these five outcomes is the most likely? It’s hard to say with confidence, though there was something the president said last Wednesday that caught my attention.

Q: Will you veto the housing bill?TRUMP: Look, I made billions of dollars with housing. I know housing better than anybody maybe anywhere. It’s all about the interest rate. I don’t want to hurt people that own houses too.

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-24T20:42:31.894Z

Asked by a reporter about a possible veto, Trump replied, “I said I’m not signing the housing bill. I want to see what happens with [the SAVE America Act]. Look, the housing bill is — I made billions of dollars with housing. I know housing better than anybody, maybe anywhere. It’s all about the interest rate. Lower the interest rates, you can have all the housing you want.

“But you have to understand, I don’t want to hurt people that own houses, too. These people, for the first time in their lives, they have valuable houses. They become rich. I don’t want to hurt them, either.”

In other words, Trump, who declared earlier this year that he doesn’t want to make housing more affordable, appeared to have substantive problems with the point of the bipartisan housing bill, irrespective of his fixation on his anti-voting proposal.

If the president meant what he said and follows through, then the House speaker’s confidence about Trump signing the bill into law may very well be misplaced. Watch this space.

The post As the bipartisan housing bill reaches the White House, what happens now? appeared first on MS NOW.

Ben Stokes’ storied England career ends in a series defeat by New Zealand, who wrap up the third and deciding Test on the final day in Nottingham.