Facing a government shutdown deadline, the Senate rushed through final passage early Saturday of a bipartisan plan that would temporarily fund federal operations and disaster aid, dropping President-elect Donald Trump’s demands for a debt limit increase into the new year.
House Speaker Mike Johnson had insisted Congress would “meet our obligations” and not allow federal operations to shutter ahead of the Christmas holiday season. But the day’s outcome was uncertain after Trump doubled down on his insistence that a debt ceiling increase be included in any deal — if not, he said in an early morning post, let the closures “start now.”
The House approved Johnson’s new bill overwhelmingly, 366-34. The Senate worked into the night to pass it, 85-11, just after the deadline. At midnight, the White House said it had ceased shutdown preparations.
“This is a good outcome for the country, ” Johnson said after the House vote, adding he had spoken with Trump and the president-elect “was certainly happy about this outcome, as well.”
President Joe Biden, who has played a less public role in the process throughout a turbulent week, was expected to sign the measure into law Saturday.
“There will be no government shutdown,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said.
The final product was the third attempt from Johnson, the beleaguered House speaker, to achieve one of the basic requirements of the federal government — keeping it open. And it raised stark questions about whether Johnson will be able to keep his job, in the face of angry GOP colleagues, and work alongside Trump and billionaire ally Elon Musk, who called the legislative plays from afar.
Trump’s last-minute demand was almost an impossible ask, and Johnson had almost no choice but to work around his pressure for a debt ceiling increase. The speaker knew there wouldn’t be enough support within the GOP majority to pass any funding package, since many Republican deficit hawks prefer to slash the federal government and certainly wouldn’t allow more debt.
Instead, the Republicans, who will have full control of the White House, House and Senate next year, with big plans for tax cuts and other priorities, are showing they must routinely rely on Democrats for the votes needed to keep up with the routine operations of governing.
“So is this a Republican bill or a Democrat bill?” scoffed Musk on social media ahead of the vote.
The drastically slimmed-down 118-page package would fund the government at current levels through March 14 and add $100 billion in disaster aid and $10 billion in agricultural assistance to farmers.
Gone is Trump’s demand to lift the debt ceiling, which GOP leaders told lawmakers would be debated as part of their tax and border packages in the new year. Republicans made a so-called handshake agreement to raise the debt limit at that time while also cutting $2.5 trillion in spending over 10 years.
It’s essentially the same deal that flopped the night before in a spectacular setback — opposed by most Democrats and some of the most conservative Republicans — minus Trump’s debt ceiling demand.
But it’s far smaller than the original bipartisan accord Johnson struck with Democratic and Republican leaders — a 1,500-page bill that Trump and Musk rejected, forcing him to start over. It was stuffed with a long list of other bills — including much-derided pay raises for lawmakers — but also other measures with broad bipartisan support that now have a tougher path to becoming law.
House Democrats were cool to the latest effort after Johnson reneged on the hard-fought bipartisan compromise.
A state appeals court on Thursday removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump and others, the latest legal victory for the president-elect in criminal cases that once threatened his career and freedom.
The case against Trump and more than a dozen others had already been stalled for months over an appeal related to a romantic relationship Willis had with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired to lead the case.
Citing an “appearance of impropriety” that might not typically warrant such a removal, a Georgia Court of Appeals panel said in a 2-1 ruling that “this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.” Willis’ office immediately filed a notice of intent to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to review the decision.
But pursuing a criminal case against a sitting president is a virtual impossibility. And Trump will return to the White House having overcome efforts to prosecute him and empowered by a Supreme Court ruling granting him presumptive immunity for any “official acts” he takes in office.
The development comes weeks after Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith abandoned two federal prosecutions against the incoming president, and as sentencing in a separate hush money case in New York is indefinitely on hold as a result of Trump’s victory in November over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
A grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia. The alleged scheme included Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to help find enough votes to beat Biden. Four people have pleaded guilty.
Trump told Fox News Digital that the case “should not be allowed to go any further.” The president-elect added: “Everybody should receive an apology, including those wonderful patriots who have been caught up in this for years.”
Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said the ruling was “well-reasoned and just.” He said the appeals court “highlighted that Willis’ misconduct created an ‘odor of mendacity’ and an appearance of impropriety that could only be cured by the disqualification of her and her entire office.”
“This decision puts an end to a politically motivated persecution of the next President of the United States,” Sadow wrote in an emailed statement.
Representatives for Willis did not immediately respond to a text message seeking comment on the ruling.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear arguments next month over the constitutionality of the federal law that could ban TikTok in the United States if its Chinese parent company doesn’t sell it.
The justices will hear arguments Jan. 10 about whether the law impermissibly restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment.
The law, enacted in April, set a Jan. 19 deadline for TikTok to be sold or else face a ban in the United States. The popular social media platform has more than 170 million users in the U.S.
It’s unclear how quickly a decision might come. But the high court still could act after the arguments to keep the law from taking effect pending a final ruling, if at least five of the nine justices think it’s unconstitutional.
Lawyers for the company and China-based ByteDance had urged the justices to step in before Jan. 19. The high court also will hear arguments from content creators who rely on the platform for income and some TikTok users.
The timing of the arguments means that the outgoing Biden administration’s Justice Department will make the case in defense of the law that passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed by Democratic President Joe Biden in April.
The incoming Republican administration might not have the same view of the law.
President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported a ban but then pledged during the campaign to “save TikTok,” has said his administration would take a look at the situation. Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida on Monday.
The companies have said that a shutdown lasting just a month would cause TikTok to lose about one-third of its daily users in the U.S. and significant advertising revenue.
The case pits free speech rights against the government’s stated aims of protecting national security, while raising novel issues about social media platforms.
“We believe the Court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their free speech rights,” TikTok spokesman Michael Hughes said in a statement.
Free-speech advocates also praised the court’s decision to step in.
The government should not be able to restrict speech “without proving with evidence that the tools are presently seriously harmful. But in this case, Congress has required and the DC Circuit approved TikTok’s forced divestiture based only upon fears of future potential harm. This greatly lowers well-established standards for restricting freedom of speech in the U.S.,” David Greene, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement.
A panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the law on Dec. 6, then denied an emergency plea to delay the law’s implementation.
Without court action, the law would take effect Jan. 19 and expose app stores that offer TikTok and internet hosting services that support it to potential fines.
TikTok on Monday asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis to block the federal law that would ban the popular platform in the United States unless its China-based parent company agreed to sell it.
Lawyers for the company and China-based ByteDance urged the justices to step in before the law’s Jan. 19 deadline. A similar plea was filed by content creators who rely on the platform for income and some of TikTok’s more than 170 million users in the U.S.
“A modest delay in enforcing the Act will create breathing room for this Court to conduct an orderly review and the new Administration to evaluate this matter — before this vital channel for Americans to communicate with their fellow citizens and the world is closed,” lawyers for the companies told the Supreme Court.
President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported a ban but then pledged during the campaign to “save TikTok,” said his administration would take a look at the situation.
“As you know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump said during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. His campaign saw the platform as a way to reach younger, less politically engaged voters.
Trump was meeting with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Mar-a-Lago on Monday, according to two people familiar with the president-elect’s plans who were not authorized to speak publicly about them and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
The companies have said that a shutdown lasting just a month would cause TikTok to lose about a third of its daily users in the U.S. and significant advertising revenue.
The case could attract the court’s interest because it pits free speech rights against the government’s stated aims of protecting national security, while raising novel issues about social media platforms.
The request first goes to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in the nation’s capital. He almost certainly will seek input from all nine justices.
On Friday, a panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied an emergency plea to block the law, a procedural ruling that allowed the case to move to the Supreme Court.
The same panel had earlier unanimously upheld the law over a First Amendment challenge claiming that it violated free speech rights.
Without a court-ordered freeze, the law would take effect Jan. 19 and expose app stores that offer TikTok and internet hosting services that support it to potential fines.
It would be up to the Justice Department to enforce the law, investigating possible violations and seeking sanctions. But lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance have argued that Trump’s Justice Department might pause enforcement or otherwise seek to mitigate the law’s most severe consequences. Trump takes office a day after the law goes into effect.
The Supreme Court could temporarily put the law on hold so that the justices can give fuller consideration to First Amendment and other issues. They also could quickly schedule arguments and try to render a decision by Jan. 19.
On the other hand, the high court could reject the emergency appeal, which would allow the law to take effect as scheduled.
With that last prospect in mind, the companies’ lawyers asked for a ruling on their emergency request by Jan. 6 because they’d need the time “to coordinate with their service providers to perform the complex task of shutting down the TikTok platform only in the United States.”
The case has made a relatively quick trip through the courts once bipartisan majorities in Congress approved the law and President Joe Biden signed it in April.
At a time of heightened political division, Americans’ confidence in their country’s judicial system and courts dropped to a record low of 35% this year, according to a new Gallup poll.
The United States saw a sharp drop of 24 percentage points over the last four years, setting the country apart from other wealthy nations where most people on average still express trust in their systems.
The results come after a tumultuous period that included the overturning of the nationwide right to abortion, the indictment of former President Donald Trump and the subsequent withdrawal of federal charges, and his attacks on the integrity of the judicial system.
The drop wasn’t limited to one end of the political spectrum. Confidence dropped among people who disapproved of the country’s leadership during Joe Biden’s presidency and among those who approved, according to Gallup. The respondents weren’t asked about their party affiliations.
It’s become normal for people who disapprove of the country’s leadership to also lose at least some confidence in the court system. Still, the 17-point drop recorded among that group under Biden was precipitous, and the cases filed against Trump were likely factors, Gallup said.
Among those who did approve of the country’s leadership, there was an 18-point decline between 2023 and 2024, possibly reflecting dissatisfaction with court rulings favoring Trump, Gallup found. Confidence in the judicial system had been above 60% among that group during the first three years of Biden’s presidency but nosedived this year.
Trump had faced four criminal indictments this year, but only a hush-money case in New York ended with a trial and conviction before he won the presidential race.
Since then, special counsel Jack Smith has ended his two federal cases, which pertained to Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss and allegations that he hoarded classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. A separate state election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia, is largely on hold. Trump denies wrongdoing in all.
Other Gallup findings have shown that Democrats’ confidence in the Supreme Court dropped by 25 points between 2021 and 2022, the year the justices overturned constitutional protections for abortion. Their trust climbed a bit, to 34%, in 2023, but dropped again to 24% in 2024. The change comes after a Supreme Court opinion that Trump and other former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution.
Trust in the court among Republicans, by contrast, reached 71% in 2024.
The judicial system more broadly also lost public confidence more quickly than many other U.S. institutions over the last four years. Confidence in the federal government, for example, also declined to 26%. That was a 20-point drop — not as steep as the decline in confidence in the courts.
The trust drop is also steep compared with other countries around the world. Only a handful of other countries have seen larger drops during a four-year period. They include a 46-point drop in Myanmar during the period that overlapped the return of military rule in 2021, a 35-point drop in Venezuela amid deep economic and political turmoil from 2012 to 2016 and a 28-point drop in Syria in the runup and early years of its civil war.
The survey was based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 U.S. adults between June 28 and August 1.
A prominent human rights attorney has quietly parted ways with the International Criminal Court to protest what he sees as an unjustified failure of its chief prosecutor to indict members of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro ’s government for crimes against humanity, The Associated Press has learned.
The Chilean-born Claudio Grossman, a former law school dean at American University in Washington and past president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, was appointed special adviser to ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan in November 2021. In that unpaid position, he advised Khan on the deteriorating human rights situation in Venezuela.
In a harshly worded email last month to Khan, Grossman said his ethical standards no longer allow him to stand by silently as Maduro’s government continues to commit abuses, expel foreign diplomats and obstruct the work of human rights monitors from the United Nations — without any action from the ICC.
“I can no longer justify the choice not to take correspondingly serious action against the perpetrators of the grave violations,” Grossman wrote in an email rejecting an offer by Khan’s office in September to renew his contract.
A copy of the email, which has not been made public, was provided to the AP by someone familiar with the ICC investigation into Venezuela. A phone call by Khan asking Grossman to reconsider also failed, according to the person on the condition of anonymity to discuss the politically sensitive investigation.
Following AP’s inquiries with Khan’s office, Grossman’s name was removed from the court’s website listing him as a special adviser.
“The Prosecutor is extremely grateful to Professor Grossman for the expertise and work he has rendered,” the prosecutor’s office said in a statement without addressing Grossman’s stated reasons for cutting ties with the court based in The Hague, Netherlands. Grossman declined to comment.
The pressure on Khan to indict Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself, comes as he battles allegations of misconduct with a female aide and the threat of U.S. sanctions over his decision to seek the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
The Rome Statute that established the court took effect in 2002, with a mandate to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide — but only when domestic courts fail to initiate their own investigations.
Calls for faster progress in the court’s only ever investigation in Latin America have grown louder as Maduro tightens his grip on power, preparing to be sworn in for a third term Jan. 10 following an election marred by serious allegations of ballot box fraud and a post-election crackdown. More than 2,000 people were arrested and 20 killed following the vote.
The U.S. and even some fellow leftist leaders in Latin America have demanded authorities present voting records, as they have in the past, to refute tally sheets presented by Maduro’s opponents showing their candidate, Edmundo González, prevailed by a two-to-one margin.
Many in Venezuela’s opposition have complained that the ICC is applying a double standard, moving aggressively to seek the arrest of Netanyahu and Russia’s Vladimir Putin for atrocities in Gaza and Ukraine while showing undue leniency with Venezuelan officials Khan has been investigating for more than three years.
“There is no justification whatsoever for the inaction,” González and opposition leader María Corina Machado wrote in a recent letter to Grossman and 18 other special advisers to the court appealing for their help.
“What is at stake is the life and well-being of Venezuelans,” they added in the letter, which was also provided to the AP by the person familiar with the ICC investigation. “This unjustifiable delay will cast legitimate doubts about the integrity of a system of accountability that has been an aspiration for the whole world.”
At the request of several Latin American governments, Khan three years ago opened an investigation into Venezuelan security forces’ jailing, torture and killing of anti-government demonstrators. At the same time, he promised technical assistance to give local authorities an opportunity to take action before the ICC, a tribunal of last resort.
South Korea’s opposition leader offered Sunday to work with the government to ease the political tumult as officials sought to reassure allies and markets, a day after the opposition-controlled parliament voted to impeach conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol over a short-lived attempt to impose martial law.
Liberal Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, whose party holds a majority in the National Assembly, urged the Constitutional Court to rule swiftly on Yoon’s impeachment and proposed a special council for policy cooperation between the government and parliament.
Yoon’s powers have been suspended until the court decides whether to remove him from office or reinstate him. If Yoon is dismissed, a national election to choose his successor must be held within 60 days.
Lee, who has led a fierce political offensive against Yoon’s embattled government, is seen as the frontrunner to replace him. He lost the 2022 presidential election to Yoon by a razor-thin margin.
He told a televised news conference that a swift court ruling would be the only way to “minimize national confusion and the suffering of people.”
The court will meet to discuss the case Monday, and has up to 180 days to rule. But observers say that a court ruling could come faster. In the case of parliamentary impeachments of past presidents — Roh Moo-hyun in 2004 and Park Geun-hye in 2016 — the court spent 63 days and 91 days respectively before determining to reinstate Roh and dismiss Park.
Lee also proposed a national council where the government and the National Assembly would work together to stabilize state affairs, and said his party won’t seek to impeach Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, a Yoon appointee who’s now serving as acting president.
“The Democratic Party will actively cooperate with all parties to stabilize state affairs and restore international trust,” Lee said. “The National Assembly and government will work together to quickly resolve the crisis that has swept across the Republic of Korea.”
It’s unclear if Lee’s proposed council will be realized.
In a meeting with the parliament speaker, who touched upon Lee’s idea, Han said he will closely cooperate and communicate with the National Assembly but didn’t specifically say whether the government intends to join the council. Kweon Seong-dong, floor leader of the ruling People Power Party, separately criticized Lee’s proposal, saying that it’s “not right” for the opposition party acting like the ruling party.
Kweon, a Yoon loyalist, said that his party will use existing PPP-government dialogue channels “to continue to assume responsibility as the governing party until the end of President Yoon’s term.”
The Democratic Party has already used its parliamentary majority to impeach the justice minister and the chief of the national police over the martial law decree, and had previously said it was also considering impeaching the prime minister.
Upon assuming his role as acting leader, Han ordered the military to bolster its security posture to prevent North Korea from launching provocations. He also asked the foreign minister to inform other countries that South Korea’s major external policies will remain unchanged, and the finance minister to work to minimize potential negative impacts on the economy from the political turmoil.
On Sunday, Han had a phone call with U.S. President Joe Biden, discussing the political situation in South Korea and regional security challenges including North Korea’s nuclear program. Biden expressed his appreciation for the resiliency of democracy in South Korea and reaffirmed “the ironclad commitment” of the United States, according to both governments.
Yoon’s Dec. 3 imposition of martial law, the first of its kind in more than four decades, lasted only six hours, but has caused massive political tumult, halted diplomatic activities and rattled financial markets. Yoon was forced to lift his decree after parliament unanimously voted to overturn it.
Yoon sent hundreds of troops and police officers to the parliament in an effort to stop the vote, but they withdrew after the parliament rejected Yoon’s decree. No major violence occurred.
Opposition parties have accused Yoon of rebellion, saying a president in South Korea is allowed to declare martial law only during wartime or similar emergencies and would have no right to suspend parliament’s operations even in those cases.
Yoon has rejected the charges and vowed to “fight to the end.” He said the deployment of troops to parliament was aimed at issuing a warning to the Democratic Party, which he called an “anti-state force” that abused its control of parliament by holding up the government’s budget bill for next year and repeatedly pushing to impeach top officials.
Law enforcement institutions are investigating Yoon and others involved in the martial law case over possible rebellion and other allegations. They’ve arrested Yoon’s defense minister and police chief and two other high-level figures.
Yoon has immunity from most criminal prosecution as president, but that doesn’t extend to allegations of rebellion or treason. He’s been banned from leaving South Korea, but observers doubt that authorities will detain him because of the potential for clashes with his presidential security service.
An appeals court in Louisiana has ruled that Nasdaq can’t require diversity on the boards of companies that list on the exchange.
The decision comes more than three years after the Securities and Exchange Commission approved Nasdaq’s proposal to boost the number of women, racial minorities and LGBTQ people on U.S. corporate boards.
The proposed policy — which was to be the first of its kind for a U.S. securities exchange — would have required most of the nearly 3,000 companies listed on Nasdaq to have at least one woman on their board of directors, along with one person from a racial minority or who identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer. It also would have required companies to publicly disclose statistics on the demographic composition of their boards.
Some conservative groups and Republican lawmakers have strenuously opposed the proposal, arguing the requirements were arbitrary and burdensome. And on Wednesday the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans decided that the proposal was not legal.
The court said in its ruling that the SEC should not have approved Nasdaq’s proposed diversity policy.
“It is not unethical for a company to decline to disclose information about the racial, gender, and LGTBQ+ characteristics of its directors,” the ruling stated. “We are not aware of any established rule or custom of the securities trade that saddles companies with an obligation to explain why their boards of directors do not have as much racial, gender, or sexual orientation diversity as Nasdaq would prefer.”
Nasdaq stands by its proposed policy.
“We maintain that the rule simplified and standardized disclosure requirements to the benefit of both corporates and investors,” Nasdaq said in a statement. “That said, we respect the Court’s decision and do not intend to seek further review.”
The Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange is dominated by technology companies, like Apple and Microsoft, but there are many financial, biotech and industrial companies as well. The SEC also weighed in.
“We’re reviewing the decision and will determine next steps as appropriate,” an SEC spokesperson said in a statement.
The court ruling comes at a time when many companies are taking a closer look at their diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. In October a group of Democrats in Congress appealed to the largest U.S. companies to hold onto their diversity, equity and inclusion programs, saying such efforts give everyone a fair chance at achieving the American dream.
The 49 House members, led by U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia of California, shared their views in a letter emailed to the leaders of the Fortune 1000. The move followed several major corporations saying in recent months that they would end or curtail their DEI initiatives.
A handful of U.S. companies, including Ford, Harley-Davidson, John Deere, Lowes and Molson Coors, dialed back their DEI initiatives over the summer. The retreats came in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court outlawing affirmative action in college admissions and after conservative activists targeted prominent American brands over their diversity policies and programs.
The Supreme Court is allowing a class-action lawsuit that accuses Nvidia of misleading investors about its past dependence on selling computer chips for the mining of volatile cryptocurrency to proceed.
The court’s decision Wednesday comes the same week that China said it is investigating the the microchip company over suspected violations of Chinese anti-monopoly laws. The justices heard arguments four weeks ago in Nvidia’s bid to shut down the lawsuit, then decided that they were wrong to take up the case in the first place. They dismissed the company’s appeal, leaving in place an appellate ruling allowing the case to go forward.
At issue was a 2018 suit led by a Swedish investment management firm. It followed a dip in the profitability of cryptocurrency, which caused Nvidia’s revenues to fall short of projections and led to a 28% drop in the company’s stock price.
Nvidia had argued that the investors’ lawsuit should be thrown out because it does not measure up to a 1995 law, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, that is intended to bar frivolous complaints. A district court judge had dismissed the complaint before the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that it could go forward. The Biden administration backed the investors at the Supreme Court.
“This is a win for corporate accountability. When corporations mislead shareholders, they undermine trust in our markets. Ensuring that investors can seek justice is essential to preserving fairness and transparency,” Deepak Gupta, who represented the investors at Supreme Court, said in a statement.
In 2022, Nvidia, which is based in Santa Clara, California, paid a $5.5 million fine to settle charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it failed to disclose that cryptomining was a significant source of revenue growth from the sale of graphics processing units that were produced and marketed for gaming. The company did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
Nvidia’s recent performance has been spectacular. Even after the news of the China investigation, its share price is up 180% this year.
Nvidia has led the artificial intelligence sector to become one of the stock market’s biggest companies, as tech giants continue to spend heavily on the company’s chips and data centers needed to train and operate their AI systems.
The lawsuit is one of two high court cases that involved class-action lawsuits against tech companies. The justices also dismissed an appeal from Facebook parent Meta that sought to end to a multibillion-dollar class action investors’ lawsuit stemming from the privacy scandal involving the Cambridge Analytica political consulting firm.
North Carolina’s elections board dismissed formal protests Wednesday by several Republican candidates who trailed narrowly in their races last month and had questioned well over 60,000 ballots cast this fall.
The State Board of Elections’ decisions sided with the Democratic candidates, including those for a state Supreme Court seat and a key General Assembly seat. These matters are now expected to be resolved in the courts.
The board voted in favor of denying the protests of GOP Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin, who after a recent statewide machine recount trailed Associate Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes from over 5.5 million ballots cast. No additional recounts had been ordered after a partial hand recount completed Tuesday failed to suggest that Griffin could catch up to Riggs.
Riggs is one of only two Democrats on the seven-member court, which has been a partisan flash point in the state over the past two years in court battles involving redistricting, photo voter identification and other voting rights.
The board on Wednesday considered protests filed by Griffin, a current Court of Appeals judge, and three candidates for the General Assembly covering three categories of voting.
Those categories included votes cast by people with voter registration records lacking driver’s licenses or containing partial Social Security numbers; overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S. but whose parents were deemed North Carolina residents; and military or overseas voters who did not provide copies of photo identification with their ballots.
The board is composed of three Democrats and two Republicans. In three of four dismissal motions Wednesday, the votes were 3-2 along party lines. The vote on the other motion was unanimous.
Riggs’ campaign has said that she is the winner and that Griffin should concede immediately. Speaking after the hearing, Riggs mentioned that her parents were among the 60,000-plus voters whose votes were being challenged, and “I can personally attest they are in fact lawful votes.”
Griffin didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the decisions. State Republican Party Chairman Jason Simmons said in a news release that the “board’s continued efforts to engineer political outcomes for Democrats is shameful” and suggested appeals could be ahead.
Another candidate protester is GOP Rep. Frank Sossamon, who trailed Democratic challenger Bryan Cohn. A Cohn victory would mean Republicans fall one seat short of retaining their current veto-proof majority for the next two-year General Assembly starting next month.
The board could have ultimately ordered corrected ballot tallies, more recounts or new elections if it determined the evidence showed election law violations or irregularities called into question the results of the protested elections.
Scores of protests filed by Griffin and the legislative candidates are still being considered by county boards.
During Wednesday’s hearing, attorneys for Riggs and other Democrats urged the state board to throw out the protests. They consider the protests an illegal attempt to change the election rules after votes have been cast and counted and out of line with protest rules.
“The voters that protesters are challenging here today unquestionably are eligible voters,” said Will Robertson, an attorney representing three Democratic legislative candidates and the state Democratic Party. “These protests are not only facially invalid but they’re an affront to democracy and to the rule of law in North Carolina.”
Citing the state constitution, attorneys for Griffin argued that elections boards cannot count the ballots of people who have never lived in North Carolina. And they said the state board erred by generating voter registration forms that did not make clear that state law requires an applicant to provide one of the identifying numbers.
“We filed these protests because we believe the winners of these elections should be determined by eligible voters and only by eligible voters,” Craig Schauer, an attorney for Griffin and GOP legislative candidates, told the board.
In addition to the substance of the protests, Democratic board members also threw out the protests because they determined that voters did not receive appropriate legal notice that their votes were being challenged.
Griffin sent postcards to a voter or the “current resident” stating that “your vote may be affected” by a protest, according to legal briefs and evidence. It included a QR code that mobile phone users could visit to obtain information. Democrats said people may have thrown the postcard away or considered it a scam.
The state board’s decisions came days after the state Democratic Party sued in federal court to block the State Board of Elections from ruling in any way to throw out the disputed ballots.
Griffin led Riggs by about 10,000 votes on election night, but that lead dwindled and flipped to Riggs as qualifying provisional and absentee ballots were added to the totals.
A federal appeals court scrutinized the impact of Idaho’s strict abortion ban on emergency medical care on Tuesday, weighing whether the ban criminalizing abortions should be enforceable in life- and health-threatening situations.
John Bursch, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom representing Idaho, asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel of 11 judges to urgently lift the injunction preventing the state from enforcing its abortion ban in emergency room settings, saying it “harms Idaho sovereignty, harms women, (and) harms unborn children.”
“It’s here before you now, you should decide it,” he said.
Idaho’s law makes it a felony to perform an abortion unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the death of the patient.
President Joe Biden’s administration sued Idaho two years ago, contending the law violates a federal rule called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, because it prevents doctors from performing abortions that save their patients from serious infections, organ loss or other major medical issues.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case earlier this year but bounced it back to the lower court on a procedural issue, leaving unanswered questions about the legality of the state abortion ban. That will be determined at a later date, but the 9th Circuit’s ruling could decide whether the law can be enforced while the lawsuit is still working its way through court.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the judges raised a number of hypothetical situations as they tried to determine whether the ban can coexist with EMTALA.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke raised the hypothetical of a doctor presented with an organ that would save a patient’s life but which was unethically harvested under state law. If a state has outlawed the use of questionably harvested donor organs, he asked, can the federal government require that treatment?
“Do you think a state’s ethical concerns … have any role to play?” asked VanDyke.
Catherine Carroll, an attorney for the U.S. government, said it was difficult to grapple with the hypothetical since organ transplants do not occur in emergency rooms, but said state ethical concerns about medical treatments could come into play only if the treatments did not violate EMTALA.
Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. said that he lives in eastern Washington, not far from the Idaho border. The only obstetrics department in the nearby city of Sandpoint, Idaho, shut down after the abortion ban was passed, he noted, leaving no available medical services for women who are “bleeding out” from pregnancy complications, he said.
“That’s the very thing that Congress was trying to avoid” by establishing EMTALA, Mendoza said. “They were trying to set a baseline of medical care for the country.”
But Taylor Meehan, an attorney for the Idaho Legislature, said EMTALA is “not the statute to solve that particular circumstance.” She said an Idaho Supreme Court ruling in another lawsuit over the state’s abortion law made clear that abortion is allowed when patients are experiencing catastrophic bleeding.
resident-elect Donald Trump has announced that he is appointing one of his defense attorneys in the New York hush money case as counselor to the president.
Alina Habba, 40, defended Trump earlier this year, also serving as his legal spokesperson. Habba has been spending time with the president-elect since the election at his Florida club Mar-a-Lago.
“She has been unwavering in her loyalty and unmatched in her resolve — standing with me through numerous ‘trials,’ battles and countless days in Court,” Trump posted on his social network Truth Social. “Few understand the Weaponization of the ‘Injustice’ System better than Alina.”
Trump became the first former American president to be convicted of felony crimes when a New York jury in May found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex.
In Trump’s first term, the position of counselor was held by Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway. Habba has Iraqi ancestry and is Chaldean, which is Iraq’s largest Christian denomination and one of the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites.
Habba frequently accompanied Trump on the campaign trail and was one of the speakers at the late October rally in New York’s Madison Square Garden.
On Sunday, Trump also announced he is bringing back former staffer Michael Anton to serve as director of policy planning at the State Department. Anton served as the National Security Council spokesman from 2017 to 2018.
Trump said he also will be appointing Michael Needham, a former chief of staff for Sen. Marco Rubio, as counselor of the State Department. The Florida senator was chosen by Trump to be his next secretary of state.