Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Workers of the Judiciary in Mexico City, Mexico, on October 15, 2024, protest outside the National Palace in the capital against judicial reform in Mexico. They reject the bill promoted by the former president of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, which proposes the election by popular vote of judges, magistrates, and ministers of the Supreme Court starting in 2025.
Mexican Congress defangs the judiciary as majority of Supreme Court resigns
Eight out of Mexico’s 11 Supreme Court justices announced late Wednesday that they would resign their positions in opposition to a judicial overhaul that requires them to stand for election, while at the same time Congress passed new legislation that will prohibit legal challenges to constitutional changes. With the opposition in tatters and the courts castrated, President Claudia Sheinbaum’s Morena party has free rein to implement its far-reaching agenda, known as the Fourth Transformation.
Experts say the legislation means Mexico effectively has no checks on presidential and legislative power, given Morena’s coalition supermajority in Congress. The opposition PRI and PAN parties are deeply unpopular and tarnished by corruption, with slim chances of recovering popular support before the midterm elections in 2027. With a strong popular mandate to boot, Morena is on stable ground to pursue whatever projects it wants to prioritize, no matter how potentially disruptive.
Seven of the eight resigning justices will serve through August 2025, with their replacements set to be elected in June, while the eighth has reached retirement and will leave his seat on Nov. 30. The justices made clear their resignations are not meant to legitimize the judicial overhaul, but they stood to lose their pensions if they did not resign or declare their candidacy by Oct. 31.
What’s the next signpost? All eyes will be on the Supreme Court on Nov. 5 (the same day as the US election), when it is expected to discuss a draft ruling on the judicial overhaul that requires justices to stand for election. They may find portions of the overhaul unconstitutional, but with Wednesday’s legislation, that point is rendered moot.Activists carry caricatures of Supreme Court justices Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene peaks with people outside of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 1st, as the justices began hearing oral arguments in a case that challenges abortion rights in the United States.
Tipping the scales: How the 2024 presidential election could define the future of the Supreme Court
Everyone knows a lot is at stake in next week’s election, with voters deciding between two candidates with vastly different visions for the United States. But the stakes may be highest at the Supreme Court, where the next president could determine whether the court swings back toward an ideological equilibrium or if the Republican-appointed majority gets even stronger, potentially ensuring conservative dominance for decades to come.
The Supreme Court increasingly acts like a legislative body. And with Congress riddled with partisan gridlock, it is also increasingly the most politically influential branch of the federal government, requiring only a five-person majority to make groundbreaking decisions on rights, regulations, and the rule of law.
When Donald Trump was last in office, he appointed JusticesNeil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, giving the Supreme Court its current 6-3 conservative majority. This has allowed for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the expansion of 2nd Amendment gun rights, and the limitation of federal agencies’ power to regulate the environment, public health, workplace hazards, and many other issues pertaining to their offices. It was also responsible for the landmark ruling in Trump v. United States, which gave presidents immunity from criminal prosecution.
Since then, President Joe Biden replaced Democratic-appointed Justice Stephen Breyer with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, keeping the ideological balance of the court the same.
How will the next president affect the makeup of the Supreme Court?
“I would expect at least one vacancy depending on whoever wins on either side,” predicts Emily Bazelon, a senior fellow at Yale Law School, “but possibly more because sometimes life events or health intervene.”
If Kamala Harris wins the presidency, the oldest Democratic-appointed justice, Sonia Sotomayor, would likely step down, giving the Democrats the power to replace her with someone younger. Supreme Court justices serve for life, so appointing a younger judge is a way of projecting political power, sometimes decades into the future. If a Republican-appointed judge steps down under Harris, the court would swing back towards a more even 5-4 majority.
On the other side, if Trump wins the presidency, 74-year-old Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas would be highly likely to step down, giving the conservative side of the bench four judges under the age of 60 (two of which are already 55 or younger). The second oldest justice, 72-year-old Samuel Alito, could also potentially retire.
If one of the Democratic-appointed justices were to step down under a Trump administration, that would create a rock-solid 7-2 Conservative majority, which is likely to have real policy implications. “The more people you can choose from to make a majority, the less you have to worry about internal differences,” says Bazelon. “Getting a majority vote of five just gets easier.”
She expects that a 7-2 majority may further limit states’ and cities’ abilities to restrict firearms or to provide emergency abortion services when women experience complications late in pregnancy.
“The more robustly conservative the court is, the more ambitious the right-wing agenda becomes,” Bazelon added.
FILE PHOTO: Members of media speak in front of cameras outside the premises of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, India October 13, 2022. REUTERS/Anushree Fadnavis/File Photo
Indian government opposes criminalizing marital rape as “excessively harsh”
India’s Supreme Court is hearing petitions this month and will soon rule on whether to criminalize marital rape, but the government opposes the idea, stating it would be “excessively harsh.” The Interior Ministry argues that while a man should face “penal consequences” for raping his wife, criminalizing the act “may lead to serious disturbances in the institution of marriage.”
The petitions seek to overturn Section 375 of India’s Penal Codewhich lists “exemptions” for sex to be considered rape, including “by a man with his own wife” if she is not a minor. A lower Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict on the issue in 2022, but when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government overhauled the country’s penal code in July, the exemption stayed on the books. Modi’s party, the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party, has longopposed changes for reasons of “illiteracy, poverty, social customs and values.”
But activists argue the 164-year-old law must be amended to combat systemic gender inequality. Sexual violence against women is rampant in India, andmedical workers are still striking over the August rape and murder of a trainee female doctor in Kolkata, for which a man was formally charged last Monday.
Around the world, more than 100 countries have outlawed marital rape. We’re watching whether public outcry – and a high court verdict - will force Modi’s government to do the same.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., June 27, 2024.
Please approach the bench! What’s on the Supreme Court's docket this season?
On Monday, the US Supreme Court took the bench again for a session where it will hear 40 cases, including some potentially landmark rulings on a Tennessee law outlawing hormone treatments for transgender minors; the Biden administration’s effort to ban “ghost guns,” which are assembled from kits purchased untraceably over the internet; and an Oklahoma capital punishment case where the state attorneys general have concluded the prosecutors hid evidence that could have led to an acquittal. All of these speak to culture war issues over which Americans are deeply divided – and at a time when faith in the Supreme Court is at its lowest.
What’s not on the docket? A case that could provide an answer on whether state abortion bans may conflict with federal law. The court decided not to rule on a case in Texas where the Biden administration invoked the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients regardless of their ability to pay. The administration argues this act preempts more restrictive state regulations on providing emergency abortion services.
The decision not to take up the case leaves the Texas court’s decision stopping the federal government from enforcing its mandate on emergency abortions in the state in place. It has been criticized by abortion-rights activists and physicians but also by Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two judges on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
And the election looms. Although the court’s caseload features fewer blockbuster cases than last year, when it ruled on presidential immunity, it does have one potentially huge looming responsibility: to potentially shape the outcome of the US election. Before the vote, SCOTUS could be asked to resolve last-minute disputes over ballot access or vote-counting rules. And after Nov. 5, it could be called upon to decide a winner if there is a serious dispute over the results.
Trump’s Jan. 6 acts were personal, not presidential, prosecutor argues
In a court filing unsealed on Wednesday, special counsel Jack Smith said Donald Trump “resorted to crimes” in an effort to retain power despite losing the 2020 election, including pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify electoral votes. Smith is trying to persuade Judge Tanya Chutkan that the former president’s actions were of a personal nature, and thus don’t fall under the sweeping protections for presidential acts the Supreme Court granted earlier this year.
The unsealed documents recount a Nov. 12, 2020, meeting between Trump and Pence where the vice president attempted to deflect pressure from Trump by offering avenues for deescalation and a peaceful transfer of power. “Don’t concede but recognize the process is over,” Pence told him, urging Trump to instead run again in 2024. According to the filing, Trump replied that he was not willing to wait.
If Smith is successful, the acts in question may remain a part of the indictment against Trump as the case moves forward. If not, the government has a harder case to make. Either way, there will be no resolution before the November election — and if Trump wins, well, all bets on Smith’s case are off.
U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith makes a statement to reporters about the 37 federal charges returned by a grand jury in an indictment of former U.S. President Donald Trump on charges of unauthorized retention of classified documents and conspiracy to obstruct justice, as Smith speaks at his offices in Washington, U.S. June 9, 2023.
Special counsel drops new Trump indictment
Special counsel Jack Smith filed a new superseding indictment in former President Donald Trump’s election interference case on Tuesday. Smith aimed to conform with the Supreme Court’s ruling granting broad immunity to presidents for official acts. The new indictment removes charges associated with Trump allegedly directing his Justice Department to conduct phony election fraud investigations and choose fraudulent electors, as the high court ruling protects them as official acts.
Smith filed the indictment just ahead of the DOJ’s “60-day rule,” which discourages filing politically sensitive cases near elections. He said in a written notice to the court that the indictment reflects the finding of “a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case.”
Smith will not seek to have Trump re-arraigned, and it’s highly unlikely that the case will be resolved before the election.
What does this mean for the campaign? It may not move the needle much, says Eurasia Group’s Clayton Allen.
“Voters will have a hard time keeping [Trump’s] different cases separate, and we've seen them recede as important factors in polling and public opinion,” he says. “Basically, the criminal stuff has been overshadowed by, well, everything that has happened in the last couple of months.”
Still, the ongoing legal actions could have significant implications for Trump. “The dogged attempts by federal prosecutors," says Eurasia Group US managing director Jon Lieber, "make the stakes of this election clear: If Trump loses, he's probably going to jail.”
U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, U.S., July 29, 2024.
Biden seeks Supreme Court reform
On Monday, President Joe Biden proposed reforms to the US Supreme Court for the first time since Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried and failed to expand the number of justices in 1937. In his address from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, TX, Biden proposed term limits, a constitutional amendment to counteract the recent presidential immunity decision, and a binding code of conduct.
“I have great respect for our institutions and the separations of powers,” Biden said. “But extremism is undermining public confidence in the court’s decisions.”
The nitty-gritty: Biden proposed 18-year term limits, enabling a president to appoint a new justice every two years. He also wants an enforcement mechanism added to the voluntary ethics code the court adopted in November, echoing Justice Elena Kagan’s support for an enforcement mechanism. Biden also called for a constitutional amendment to make clear that former presidents are not immune to federal criminal indictments.
“I thank President Biden for highlighting the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis,” said Dick Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But any legislation would need the support of a majority in the Republican-led house where Speaker Mike Johnson has called the proposal a “dangerous gambit” that would be “dead on arrival,” and accused the Democrats of delegitimizing the courts “simply because they disagree with some of its recent decisions.”
Biden has expressed disagreement with many of SCOTUS’s recent decisions, but this address marked a shift toward the progressive flank in his party, which has called for reforms even amid fears it would politicize the court. The proposals also come as Biden’s time in office draws to a close, and he made the announcement without reaching out to the Senate judiciary committee, signaling that is likely pre-election messaging, not a legislative priority.
However, presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris notably said she supports the reforms, which, if the Democrats manage to win the House in November, could potentially lead to some portion of them being implemented.
Supreme Court: Trump gets substantial immunity
The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a big win on Monday. In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for actions related to their core responsibilities while in office. The decision will almost certainly delay the charges brought against the former president in Washington, DC, for allegedly plotting to overthrow the 2020 election.
Trump contends that he is entitled to absolute immunity from the three conspiracy charges and one count of obstructing an official proceeding brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Lower courts rejected the claim, but SCOTUS has ordered them to reassess whether Trump’s alleged action on Jan. 6 “qualifies as official or unofficial,” with the understanding that he would be immune from prosecution for official actions carried out as president.
The rationale: The court’s basic argument was that without these protections, a president would be unable to do his or her unique job independently and effectively, for fear of being prosecuted by political opponents or successors.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Monday's immunity decision, "effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding."
Joe Biden spoke out against the ruling on Monday night, echoing Sotomayor's sentiment that “there are no kings in America,” and said that the ruling means there are “virtually no limits” on presidential power. The president also said that voters deserved to have an answer through the courts before Election Day about what took place on Jan. 6. The court's ruling called for prosecutors to detail their evidence against Trump in front of a federal judge — and the public — at a fact-finding hearing, though it is unclear whether that will take place before Nov. 5.
Trump has prevailed in the court this session. Even before the rulings, the high court’s decision to take up the immunity case worked in Trump’s favor to delay his prosecution until after the November election.
The court also heard two other Trump-related cases this term concerning Jan. 6. The first, an attempt to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, was unanimously rejected in March. The second ruling limited the use of a federal obstruction law to prosecute rioters who allegedly stormed the Capitol, and it will also affect Trump’s DC indictment because two of the four charges against him are based on that law.
Monday's immunity decision followed a wave of consequential rulings on Friday. Potentially the most impactful, but least flashy, was the Chevron decision, which limits the power of federal agencies and undermines the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies.
In its final decision of the session, the court on Monday also ruled to keep in place a hold on any efforts by Texas and Florida state governments to limit how social media platforms regulate content, ordering the lower courts to review the case again. The court will reconvene in October.