Hello! And welcome to another edition of the Deadline: Legal newsletter.
Wow, what a week! Donald Trump is indicted again, this time federally, marking another ignominious milestone for the former president and current 2024 candidate. The 38-count indictment against Trump and his aide Walt Nauta was unsealed Friday and charges the former president with, among other things, mishandling classified documents and obstructing justice. Notably, we finally heard from special counsel Jack Smith, who made a short and sweet statement later Friday reaffirming his independence, his view of the seriousness of the case, and, perhaps most concerning for Trump, his desire for a speedy trial.
How did we get here? Trump might have avoided charges had he simply cooperated with the authorities. But as my colleague Hayes Brown observed, Trump didn't learn his lesson after escaping liability so far from what's amounted to a career of obstruction. And remember, just because Trump is charged with violating the Espionage Act, that doesn't mean the government needs to prove he was spying for a foreign government (even if the indictment portrays him as displaying little regard for sensitive national security information). By the way, aren't you curious why these charges came from Florida instead of Washington? If so, read this piece from my colleague Lisa Rubin, who's been in Miami keeping us posted on the fast-moving action there.
So what does this new indictment mean for Trump? The charges may well be more serious than his hush money case in New York. But if you ask me, there isn't much utility in ranking the criminal cases' severity, an enterprise that might serve Trump more than anyone, lest his New York case be the only one left standing. Indeed, it's a real possibility that state charges – whether in New York, Georgia, or both – are all that's left against Trump if he or another Republican takes the White House in 2024. Presidents can't pardon state crimes. At any rate, my colleague Zeeshan Aleem explains how it's a mistake to put too much faith in the power of criminal charges to derail Trump's presidential bid.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, surprised us all on Thursday in the highly anticipated Voting Rights Act case from Alabama. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, which is usually a bad sign for voting rights. But he was joined by fellow Republican appointee Brett Kavanaugh and the three Democratic appointees to rule against a GOP-backed congressional map that diluted Black voting power. "Make no mistake, this is big," MSNBC columnist Jessica Levinson wrote about the case with national implications for elections. To be sure, the court already did damage in this case on the shadow docket by previously letting the map be used in the 2022 midterm elections, where Republicans barely won the House. And the 5-4 breakdown reinforces the stakes of every high-court appointment, as we approach the 2024 presidential election that could determine the next set of Supreme Court seats.
On a lighter note, in a trademark case, the court sided with whiskey brand Jack Daniel's against a dog toy company, holding that the First Amendment didn't protect chew toys resembling the brand's iconic liquor bottle. Somehow, it wasn't the only lighter trademark case making news at the court this week, with the justices taking up a new appeal for next term involving Trump's … hand size. Really.
And Justice Clarence Thomas somehow failed to meet the deadline for filing his annual financial disclosure, despite – or is it because of? – all the attention these days on his monetary entanglements. Alito also requested a filing extension. Perhaps the two GOP appointees were too busy dissenting from pro-civil rights rulings. Or maybe they were jealous of the interesting gifts Jackson disclosed, which included flowers from Oprah.
