By
Welcome to this week’s edition of the Deadline: Legal Newsletter, a roundup of top legal stories, including the latest developments from the Supreme Court, Donald Trump's legal cases and more. Click here to have the newsletter delivered straight to your inbox every Friday this Supreme Court term.
Supreme Court justices heard arguments this week over asset forfeiture, social media, and even Donald Trump. OK, that last one technically isn’t about Trump, but rather whether a guy can trademark “Trump Too Small” for T-shirts. The phrase stemmed from Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio’s juvenile 2016 joke about hand size corresponding with small penises. Sorry for making you think about that subject, but I don’t pick the cases — take it up with the justices.
Yet, even if the former president wasn’t a party to that intellectual property dispute, he may be knocking on the high court’s bronze doors soon.
The 14th Amendment, for example, is a Trump-related issue that could make its way to Washington. Voters are citing the amendment’s insurrectionist ban to try and keep Trump off the ballot in 2024. The matter is heating up in courtrooms across the country, with a Colorado trial that started this week and oral arguments in Minnesota on Thursday. Whatever happens in these initial legal battles, the Supreme Court will likely need to give the final answer of whether the post-Civil War provision bars Trump from retaking the White House.
Plus, the GOP front-runner’s claim of immunity from prosecution may also be SCOTUS-bound. His legal team has raised the audacious argument in his federal election interference case in Washington, with special counsel Jack Smith countering that such a legal shield would put Trump above the law. Undeterred, the former president is not only pressing the adventurous immunity claim but, in a Wednesday filing, he asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to pause his case until the issue is resolved. Smith’s team says Trump is just playing games to delay his upcoming federal trials, with the Washington case set for March and his classified documents trial in Florida set for May — for now, that is. We’re awaiting word from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, following a Wednesday hearing at which the Trump appointee suggested she’s up for more delay.
When it comes to both the 14th Amendment and criminal immunity, conservative retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig has some thoughts, and they don’t favor Trump. I was fortunate to speak with Luttig for an interview on Thursday, in which he explained why Trump is disqualified from office for trying to thwart the 2020 election, why Trump’s not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for democracy and the rule of law (spoiler alert: not good). Check out my conversation with the esteemed jurist here.
Of course, those aren’t Trump’s only legal issues, as his civil business fraud trial proceeds in Manhattan, with the Trump Organization kingpin himself slated to testify on Monday. Meanwhile, his eldest sons (and civil co-defendants) Don Jr. and Eric took the stand this week, while his eldest daughter (and former civil co-defendant) Ivanka is set to testify on Wednesday. To understand what’s at stake in the $250 million fraud trial, read my MSNBC colleague Lisa Rubin’s latest dispatch and courtroom coverage.
Follow MSNBC’s live blog coverage of Trump’s testimony here.
Looking ahead to next week, the Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear one of the most closely watched cases of the term: United States v. Rahimi, over Second Amendment rights for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the Bruen decision expanding gun rights last year, might also be thinking about the Senate, because the Democratic-led judiciary committee is set to consider subpoenaing Leonard Leo, Harlan Crow and Robin Arkley II, finally showing some real movement in the ongoing court ethics scandals in which Thomas plays a starring role. And just before wrapping up this week, the justices on Friday agreed to hear another gun rights case later this term, over so-called bump stocks, putting even more of our safety in the court’s hands.