The United States Supreme Court meets October 7 for the first day of a new term in Washington, DC.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Tuesday by refusing to move Georgia election interference charges against him from state to federal court.
The court’s action took place under a routine one-sentence order, with no dissent noted.
Meadows is one of 18 people charged in state court for illegally conspiring to keep President Trump in power after his defeat in the 2020 election. Trump was indicted on similar charges, but the Supreme Court granted him broad immunity earlier this year from prosecution for his official acts, and presumed immune beyond that. Meadows sought to leverage that ruling to apply to him, saying the charges against him should at least be moved from state to federal court because he was a federal officer at the time the alleged plot took place. took place.
But the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Meadows is no longer a federal officialand that even if he was, his actions were “not related to his official duties.” Among other things, Meadows was on the phone with Trump in 2020 when the then-president unsuccessfully sought to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state’s vote. Or as Trump said in the recorded conversation: “All I want to do is this.” I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than us. »
Had Meadows been tried in federal court, the charges against him would almost certainly have been dismissed by the Trump Justice Department. Instead, he faces state charges in the sprawling election tampering conspiracy case dating back to 2020. That case, however, was put on hold after a Georgia appeals court agreed to to examine whether Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis should be removed from office because of her romantic relationship. with the special prosecutor she hired to handle the case.
New York Rent Control Case
In another action Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging New York’s rent control law.
The law, first passed during World War II, was amended in 2019 to strengthen tenants’ rights in the state, particularly in New York, Buffalo and other urban and suburban areas. The changes included a limit on rent increases or lease renewals, reducing the circumstances in which a landlord can evict a tenant in order to take over the space for personal use and restrictions for landlords seeking to convert rented space into co-ownership.
New York landlords have challenged the law, and all have homes subject to rent stabilization laws. They claimed the law infringed on their right to dispose of their property as they wished and caused them financial harm. Specifically, they claimed that the law amounted to an unconstitutional expropriation of their property without just compensation.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their claim, stating that the government had not taken possession of the protesters’ property, since the building’s owners had voluntarily entered the rental market and were still able to evict the tenants. Opponents immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, but to no avail.
Justice Neil Gorsuch has indicated he wants to hear the case.
The Supreme Court’s large conservative majority has been very receptive to allegations that the government is taking property unconstitutionally, but Tuesday’s action follows previous cases where the Court has refused to get involved. in controversies over rent control.
New York City is considered one of the most expensive cities in the world, with the cost of living determined by sky-high real estate prices. According to the New York State Comptroller’s Office, housing affordability has deteriorated in New York over the past decade, with the median price of rent increases faster than the median income. Similar trends have also been evident in other parts of the country.
Ilana Dutton contributed to this story.