A federal trial is set to begin Monday over claims that supporters of former President Donald Trump threatened and harassed a Biden-Harris campaign bus in Texas four years ago, disrupting the campaign on the last day of early voting.
The civil trial over the so-called “Trump Train” comes as Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris race into the final two months of their head-to-head fight for the White House in November.
Democrats on the bus said they feared for their lives as Trump supporters in dozens of trucks and cars nearly caused collisions, harassing their convoy for more than 90 minutes, hitting a Biden-Harris campaign staffer’s car and forcing the bus driver to repeatedly swerve for safety.
“For at least 90 minutes, defendants terrorized and menaced the driver and passengers,” the lawsuit alleges. “They played a madcap game of highway ‘chicken’ coming within three to four inches of the bus. They tried to run the bus off the road.”
The highway confrontation prompted an FBI investigation, which led then-President Trump to declare that in his opinion, “these patriots did nothing wrong.” Among those suing is former Texas state senator and Democratic nominee for governor Wendy Davis, who was on the bus that day. Davis rose to prominence in 2013 with her 13-hour filibuster of an anti-abortion bill in the state Capitol. The other three plaintiffs are a campaign volunteer, staffer and the bus driver.
The lawsuit names six defendants, accusing them of violating the “Ku Klux Klan Act,” an 1871 federal law to stop political violence and intimidation tactics.
The same law was used in part to indict Trump on federal election interference charges over attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection. Enacted by Congress during the Reconstruction Era, the law was created to protect Black men’s right to vote by prohibiting political violence.
Videos of the confrontation on Oct. 30, 2020, that were shared on social media, including some recorded by the Trump supporters, show a group of cars and pickup trucks — many adorned with large Trump flags — riding alongside the campaign bus as it traveled from San Antonio to Austin. The Trump supporters at times boxed in the bus, slowed it down, kept it from exiting the highway and repeatedly forced the bus driver to make evasive maneuvers to avoid a collision, the lawsuit says.
On the two previous days, Biden-Harris supporters were subjected to death threats, with some Trump supporters displaying weapons, according to the lawsuit. These threats in combination with the highway confrontation led Democrats to cancel an event later in the day.
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, alleges the defendants were members of local groups near San Antonio that coordinated the confrontation.
Francisco Canseco, an attorney for three of the defendants, said his clients acted lawfully and did not infringe on the free speech rights of those on the bus. “It’s more of a constitutional issue,” Canseco said. “It’s more of who has the greater right to speak behind their candidate.”
Judge Robert Pitman, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, is set to preside over Monday’s trial. He denied the defendants’ pretrial motion for a summary judgment in their favor, ruling last month that the KKK Act prohibits the physical intimidation of people traveling to political rallies, even when racial bias isn’t a factor.
While one of the defendants, Eliazar Cisneros, argued his group had a First Amendment right to demonstrate support for their candidate, the judge wrote that “assaulting, intimidating, or imminently threatening others with force is not protected expression.”
“Just as the First Amendment does not protect a driver waving a political flag from running a red light, it does not protect Defendants from allegedly threatening Plaintiffs with reckless driving,” Pitman wrote.
A prior lawsuit filed over the “Trump Train” alleged the San Marcos Police Department violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by failing to send a police escort after multiple 911 calls were made and a bus rider said his life was threatened. It accused officers of privately laughing and joking about the emergency calls. San Marcos settled the lawsuit in 2023 for $175,000 and a requirement that law enforcement get training on responding to political violence.
The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the state’s rejection of signature petitions for an abortion rights ballot initiative on Thursday, keeping the proposal from going before voters in November.
READ MORE: Arkansas election officials reject petitions submitted to put abortion rights on 2024 ballot
The ruling dashed the hopes of organizers, who submitted the petitions, of getting the constitutional amendment measure on the ballot in the predominantly Republican state, where many top leaders tout their opposition to abortion.
Election officials said Arkansans for Limited Government, the group behind the measure, did not properly submit documentation regarding the signature gatherers it hired. The group disputed that assertion and argued it should have been given more time to provide any additional documents needed.
“We find that the Secretary correctly refused to count the signatures collected by paid canvassers because the sponsor failed to file the paid canvasser training certification,” the court said in a 4-3 ruling.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision removing the nationwide right to abortion, there has been a push to have voters decide the matter state by state.
Arkansas currently bans abortion at any time during a pregnancy, unless the woman’s life is endangered due to a medical emergency.
The proposed amendment would have prohibited laws banning abortion in the first 20 weeks of gestation and allowed the procedure later on in cases of rape, incest, threats to the woman’s health or life, or if the fetus would be unlikely to survive birth. It would not have created a constitutional right to abortion.
The ballot proposal lacked support from national abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood because it would still have allowed abortion to be banned after 20 weeks, which is earlier than other states where it remains legal.
Had they all been verified, the more than 101,000 signatures, submitted on the state’s July 5 deadline, would have been enough to qualify for the ballot. The threshold was 90,704 signatures from registered voters, and from a minimum of 50 counties.
In a earlier filing with the court, election officials said that 87,675 of the signatures submitted were collected by volunteers with the campaign. Election officials said it could not determine whether 912 of the signatures came from volunteer or paid canvassers.
Arkansans for Limited Government and election officials disagreed over whether the petitions complied with a 2013 state law requiring campaigns to submit statements identifying each paid canvasser by name and confirming that rules for gathering signatures were explained to them.
Supporters of the measure said they followed the law with their documentation, including affidavits identifying each paid gatherer. They have also argued the abortion petitions are being handled differently than other initiative campaigns this year, pointing to similar filings by two other groups.
State records show that the abortion campaign did submit, on June 27, a signed affidavit including a list of paid canvassers and a statement saying the petition rules had been explained to them. Moreover, the July 5 submission included affidavits from each paid worker acknowledging that the group provided them with all the rules and regulations required by law.
The state argued in court that this documentation did not comply because it was not signed by someone with the canvassing company rather than the initiative campaign itself. The state said the statement also needed to be submitted alongside the petitions.
The Supreme Court on Friday kept on hold in roughly half the country new regulations about sex discrimination in education, rejecting a Biden administration request.
The court voted 5-4, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the three liberal justices in dissent.
At issue were protections for pregnant students and students who are parents, and the procedures schools must use in responding to sexual misconduct complaints.
The most noteworthy of the new regulations, involving protections for transgender students, were not part of the administration’s plea to the high court. They too remain blocked in 25 states and hundreds of individual colleges and schools across the country because of lower court orders.
The cases will continue in those courts.
The rules took effect elsewhere in U.S. schools and colleges on Aug. 1. The rights of transgender people — and especially young people — have become a major political battleground in recent years as trans visibility has increased. Most Republican-controlled states have banned gender-affirming health care for transgender minors, and several have adopted policies limiting which school bathrooms trans people can use and barring trans girls from some sports competitions.
In April, President Joe Biden’s administration sought to settle some of the contention with a regulation to safeguard rights of LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, the 1972 law against sex discrimination in schools that receive federal money. The rule was two years in the making and drew 240,000 responses — a record for the Education Department.
The rule declares that it’s unlawful discrimination to treat transgender students differently from their classmates, including by restricting bathroom access. It does not explicitly address sports participation, a particularly contentious topic.
Title IX enforcement remains highly unsettled. In a series of rulings, federal courts have declared that the rule cannot be enforced in most of the Republican states that sued while the litigation continues.
In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court majority wrote that it was declining to question the lower court rulings that concluded that “the new definition of sex discrimination is intertwined with and affects many other provisions of the new rule.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the lower-court orders are too broad in that they “bar the Government from enforcing the entire rule — including provisions that bear no apparent relationship to respondents’ alleged injuries
A Detroit judge who ordered a teenager into jail clothes and handcuffs on a field trip to his courtroom will be off the bench while undergoing “necessary training,” the court’s chief judge said Thursday.
Meanwhile, the girl’s mother said Judge Kenneth King was a “big bully.”
“My daughter is hurt. She is feeling scared,” Latoreya Till told the Detroit Free Press.
She identified her daughter as Eva Goodman. The 15-year-old fell asleep in King’s court Tuesday while on a visit organized by a Detroit nonprofit.
King didn’t like it. But he said it was her attitude that led to the jail clothes, handcuffs and stern words.
“I wanted this to look and feel very real to her, even though there’s probably no real chance of me putting her in jail,” he explained to WXYZ-TV.
King has been temporarily removed from his criminal case docket and will undergo “necessary training to address the underlying issues that contributed to this incident,” said William McConico, the chief judge at 36th District Court.
The court “remains deeply committed to providing access to justice in an environment free from intimidation or disrespect. The actions of Judge King on August 13th do not reflect this commitment,” McConico said.
He said the State Court Administrative Office approved the step. King will continue to be paid. Details about the training, and how long it would last, were not disclosed.
King, who has been a judge since 2006, didn’t immediately return a phone message seeking comment. At the close of his Thursday hearings, accessible on YouTube, he made a heart shape with his hands. The judge’s work includes determining whether there’s enough evidence to send felony cases to trial at Wayne County Circuit Court.
Till said her daughter was sleepy during the Tuesday court visit because the family doesn’t have a permanent residence.
“And so, that particular night, we got in kind of late,” she told the Free Press, referring to Monday night. “And usually, when she goes to work, she’s up and planting trees or being active.”
The teen was seeing King’s court as part of a visit organized by The Greening of Detroit, an environmental group.
The criminal case charging former President Donald Trump with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election was returned Friday to the trial judge in Washington after a Supreme Court opinion last month that narrowed the scope of the prosecution.
The case was formally sent back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan for further proceedings aimed at sorting out which acts in the landmark indictment constitute official acts and which do not.
The procedural move is expected to restart the case with a flurry of motions and potential hearings, but the sheer amount of work ahead for the judge and lawyers ensures that there’s no way a trial can take place before the November presidential election in which Trump is the Republican nominee. If Trump is elected president, he can appoint an attorney general who would presumably order the case dismissed.
The four-count indictment, one of four criminal cases brought against Trump last year, accuses him of illegally conspiring to cling to the presidency by working with aides to try to undo the results of the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
But the Supreme Court on July 1 dealt prosecutors a major blow, ruling in a 6-3 opinion that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for core constitutional duties and are presumptively immune from prosecution for all other official acts.
The justices left it to Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, to decide how to apply their opinion to the remainder of the case.
That means she’ll be deciding in the weeks ahead whether key allegations in the case — including that Trump badgered his vice president, Mike Pence, to reject the official counting of electoral votes showing that he had lost the election — can remain part of the prosecution or must be discarded.
The case brought by special counsel Jack Smith had been effectively frozen since last December amid Trump’s appeal, which was argued in April before the Supreme Court, that he was immune from prosecution for the acts charged in the indictment.
A former school police officer who was part of the slow law enforcement response to the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges of failing to take action as a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers inside a fourth-grade classroom.
Adrian Gonzales was among the nearly 400 law enforcement personnel who responded to the scene but then waited more than 70 minutes to confront the shooter inside the school.
During a court hearing in Uvalde, a city of roughly 15,000 people about 80 miles (130 kilometers) west of San Antonio, teary-eyed family members of some of the victims watched as Gonzales was arraigned on charges of abandoning and failing to protect children who were killed and wounded.
Afterward, Gonzales left the courthouse and walked to his car as victims’ relatives stared at him.
Some of the families have spent more than two years pressing for officers to face charges, and some have called for more officers to be charged.
“For only two to be indicted, there should have been more because there was a lot of ranking officers during that day that knew what to do but decided not to. But they only got these two,” Jerry Mata, whose 10-year-old daughter Tess was killed, said after the hearing.
“We’ll take what we get and we’re just gonna continue fighting for the kids and the two teachers and see it all the way through,” Mata said.
Gonzales and former Uvalde schools police Chief Pete Arredondo were indicted by a grand jury in June. Arredondo waived his arraignment and entered a not guilty plea earlier this month. Both were released on bond following their indictments.
One of Gonzales’ attorneys, Nico LaHood, said after the hearing that his client “feels he’s innocent.” LaHood, the former district attorney for Bexar County, said such charges against a law enforcement officer are “uncharted territory.”
“He feels all he did was try to show up to help those children,” the lawyer said.
Although there is “justifiable, righteous anger in this situation,” Gonzales’ defense team’s position is that it shouldn’t be directed at him, LaHood said.
“We have not seen or even heard of a theory of why Mr. Gonzales is being singled out,” he told reporters.
Javier Montemayor, an attorney for Arredondo, said his client also believes he isn’t guilty.
A federal appeals court on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging first-in-the-nation law designed to place strict limits on drag shows, reversing a lower court ruling that deemed the statute unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement in part of the state.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Memphis-based LGBTQ+ theater company that filed the complaint last year lacked the legal right to sue over the law.
Friends of George’s had alleged that the law would negatively affect them because they produce “drag-centric performances, comedy sketches, and plays” with no age restrictions.
However, the federal appeals court found that Friends of George’s was not at risk of violating the 2023 law because its performances were not “harmful to minors.”
Tennessee’s Republican-dominated Legislature advanced the anti-drag law last year with the support of Republican Gov. Bill Lee. Several GOP members pointed to drag performances in their hometowns as reasons why it was necessary to restrict such performances from taking place in public or where children could view them.
Yet the actual word “drag” doesn’t appear in the statute. Instead, lawmakers changed the state’s definition of adult cabaret to mean “adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors.” Furthermore, “male or female impersonators” were classified as a form of adult cabaret, akin to strippers or topless dancers.
The law banned adult cabaret performances on public property or anywhere minors might be present. Performers who break the law risk being charged with a misdemeanor or a felony for a repeat offense.
In Thursday’s ruling, the justices stressed that term “harmful to minors” has a specific definition under Tennessee law — which has three components that must be met in order to prosecute. The ruling also pointed out that the Tennessee Supreme Court limited the definition of “harmful to a minor” to materials lacking “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for a reasonable 17-year-old minor.”
Court Watch - Legal News
