Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. President-elect Donald Trump doesn't take office until later this month, but he already filed a brief in the highly anticipated TikTok ban case ahead of next week's Supreme Court hearing. And the new year brought Chief Justice John Roberts' annual report, while Trump got a new sentencing date in New York and we were reminded that his hobbled criminal caseload isn't his only legal exposure.
Trump's not a party to the TikTok case that's set for oral argument next Friday, Jan. 10. The parties in TikTok v. Garland are the popular social media app and its users against the federal government. Trump's brief doesn't take sides on whether the First Amendment can block a law seeking to ban the app's U.S. operations if its Chinese parent company doesn't sell it. Rather, he wants the justices to pause the law's Jan. 19 divestment deadline, so that he can pursue what his brief called a "political resolution" to the dispute after his Jan. 20 inauguration.
Notably, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board slammed Trump's SCOTUS brief, which was filed by John Sauer, Trump's pick for solicitor general. "The brief is extraordinary in several ways, none of them good," wrote the conservative board. It noted that the justices previously denied a request from TikTok to halt the law pending the high court's final decision. "To grant Mr. Trump's request for a stay now would set a bad precedent that invites future incoming Presidents to interfere in pending Court cases," the board wrote. It added that the solicitor general "isn't supposed to be Mr. Trump's personal attorney, and Mr. Sauer's brief won't help his credibility with the Justices if he is confirmed by the Senate."
The Jan. 10 TikTok hearing in Washington should give us a better sense of where the court is headed in the appeal that kicks off the new year. Stay tuned for a special edition of next week's newsletter to learn how the hearing went and what it means for the fate of the app.
Jan. 10 is also Trump's sentencing date in New York. That's according to a Friday ruling from Judge Juan Merchan, who rejected the president-elect's latest motion that stood in the way of sentencing. Notably, Merchan said he's not inclined to sentence Trump to incarceration for the 34 counts of falsifying business records for which a Manhattan jury found the defendant guilty last year. Nonetheless, Trump's lawyers may still try to push off the sentencing before he's inaugurated on Jan. 20.
Trump's civil caseload also made news when a federal appeals court rejected his bid for a new trial in the case in which a jury awarded writer E. Jean Carroll $5 million after finding Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her. Note that this is a separate case from the one where a jury awarded her $83 million in defamation damages. A spokesman for Trump said he will continue to appeal.
Judicial independence was the theme of Roberts' 2024 report that dropped on New Year's Eve. The chief decried "four areas of illegitimate activity" which, he argued, threaten such independence: Violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy court orders. Broadly speaking, it's difficult to disagree, though Roberts was vague, at points, about who or what he was referring to. At any rate, we'll see if he speaks up if Vice President-elect JD Vance supports defying any decisions, which Vance said would be proper if the courts rule against Trump.
Continuing along the judicial independence theme, in a sense, Justice Clarence Thomas won't be referred to the DOJ by a federal judicial panel for ethics violations. The Judicial Conference suggested in its response to Democratic lawmakers that it lacked authority over the justices, adding that it's largely a moot point because Democrats already asked the attorney general to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter. The conference sent a similar letter in response to former (and possible future) Trump administration official Russell Vought's request to refer Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the DOJ.
"Gob-Smacking and Ahistorical" was how Fix the Court's Gabe Roth reacted to the Thomas news. "Like the time the Ethics in Government Act was enacted, we're once again in an era that's marked by a keen attention to government malfeasance," he said. "But unlike the post-Watergate period, the justices today can be found sitting on superyachts, flying circles around the globe on private jets and laughing in our faces."
Have any questions or comments for me? I'd love to hear from you! Please email deadlinelegal@nbcuni.com for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.
