Supreme Court revives Biden’s ghost gun restrictions

The Supreme Court revived the Biden administration’s restrictions on so-called ghost guns in a 5-4 emergency ruling Tuesday.

The justices agreed to pause a lower court’s decision, which invalidated the regulation nationwide, as the administration continues its appeal.

The decision hands a victory to Biden, at least for now. Biden last year announced the crackdown on ghost guns, referring to firearms that are sold as do-it-yourself kits and are generally hard to trace.

The case will now proceed in a lower appeals court, which is slated to hear oral arguments next month. The matter could ultimately return to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in temporarily reviving the restrictions. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts walks to the Senate chamber at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2020. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts walks to the Senate chamber at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2020. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

The new regulations implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have come under multiple legal challenges from gun rights advocacy groups.

In June, a Republican-appointed federal judge in Texas ruled the regulation exceeded the ATF’s authority and vacated it, siding with two firearm owners, two advocacy organizations and five entities that manufacture or distribute guns.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later narrowed the decision, but the Supreme Court on Tuesday put the rest of the Texas judge’s decision on hold.


Top Stories from The Hill


At issue is how the ATF places restrictions on ghost guns by expanding its interpretation of two provisions of a long-standing federal gun law. The first clarifies that the federal definition of a “firearm” includes certain parts kits, and the second defines “frame or receiver” to include disassembled parts that can be readily converted into a functional gun. 

By expanding the definitions, the regulation stretches federal serial number, record-keeping and background-check requirements to ghost guns. But the federal judge in Texas ruled the ATF’s interpretation exceeded the law’s scope. 

Beyond the debates over the agency’s interpretation, the Justice Department also argued to the Supreme Court that the judge had improperly made the ruling take effect nationwide.

Alito, who handles emergency requests arising out of the 5th Circuit, had previously issued two brief pauses in the same case in recent days as the court weighed the administration’s bid.

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

In seeking the pause, the administration cited a rise in ghost guns submitted for tracing, from 1,600 in 2017 to more than 19,000 in 2021.

Allowing the judge’s ruling “to take effect would let tens of thousands of untraceable ghost guns flow into our Nation’s communities — with many going to felons, minors, or those intending to use them in crimes,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings.

“A stay, in contrast, would simply require respondents to comply with the same straightforward, inexpensive requirements for commercial firearms sales that tens of thousands of dealers already comply with in millions of transactions each year,” the filing continued.

The request was supported by March for Our Lives, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The attorney general for Washington, D.C., joined by 20 Democratic state attorneys general, also filed an amicus brief backing the Biden administration. 

“The Final Rule stops a growing segment of the modern gun industry from exploiting new technology to widen the very gaps that the [Gun Control Act of 1968] sought to close,” the attorneys general wrote to the justices. “It is no surprise that law enforcement ‘strongly supports’ efforts to treat ghost guns the same as other firearms.”

The groups that filed the lawsuit were backed by a national trade association representing U.S. firearms manufacturers.

“We’re deeply disappointed that the Court pressed pause on our defeat of ATF’s rule effectively redefining ‘firearm’ and ‘frame or receiver’ under federal law,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, general counsel at Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation, which represents the challengers.

“Regardless of today’s decision, we’re still confident that we will yet again defeat ATF and its unlawful rule at the Fifth Circuit when that Court has the opportunity to review the full merits of our case,” he said in a statement.

Updated at 2:06 p.m.

House GOP cools on Mayorkas impeachment fever

House Republicans once regarded Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as their easiest impeachment target. Yet even that seems increasingly out of reach.

Centrist Republicans were never quite sold on impeaching the secretary over problems at the border, nor aligned with their colleagues’ belief that Mayorkas lied to lawmakers at a committee hearing. Now, some of the most vocal Republicans pushing to remove him are acknowledging they're finding GOP skeptics virtually immovable.

Even Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who thrilled conservatives last year when he opened the door to impeachment proceedings, is signaling he’s still not convinced.

“The only time you use impeachment is if someone has done something that rises to impeachment,” McCarthy told POLITICO, noting that committees are still investigating Mayorkas.

It’s a sign McCarthy hasn’t totally bowed to his conservative wing, even as he's feeding their hopes of potential impeachment inquiries into Attorney General Merrick Garland and President Joe Biden. But centrists and their allies across the conference, already bearish about Mayorkas efforts, are even less enthusiastic about actually attempting to boot those two from office. They’ve supported investigations but have warned that actually taking those votes without proof of wrongdoing could mean the party loses the House next term.

On paper, there are also plenty of reasons a Mayorkas impeachment could still be in play. Border crossing arrests increased in July, though a DHS spokesperson noted illegal crossings generally remain lower compared to recent months. And a key committee investigating Mayorkas is preparing to roll out its findings this fall, which could fold into any impeachment effort. Behind the scenes, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and others have lobbied leadership and their colleagues to move forward for months.

Rep. Chip Roy questions Mayorkas during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill July 26, 2023.

“Some of my colleagues get hung up on high crimes and misdemeanors in a way that they don’t want to take that step with respect to Mayorkas. I disagree,” said Roy, a prominent member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus.

But other House Republicans acknowledge that, anecdotally, they aren’t hearing as much about the idea of impeaching Mayorkas from their colleagues. And Roy, though he insisted they’ve made progress, admitted the votes just might not exist in the narrow House majority.

“We have what — a majority of three, or four or five depending on the day and people’s health? So, if there’s a handful of people that don’t cross the line, that’s where we are,” he said.

The Republicans who aren’t yet on board include members of the Judiciary Committee itself — a huge stumbling block to even beginning impeachment proceedings. And even some conservatives aren't backing the efforts.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Freedom Caucus, said that a recent hearing with Mayorkas didn’t sway him toward supporting impeachment. He remains unconvinced that booting Mayorkas is a necessary step, and summed up the impeachment chatter within the conference as a “new shiny object every week.”

“Think about it — you replace Mayorkas with another Biden appointee,” Buck said, adding that impeachment is “a rare occurrence. It’s supposed to be.”

Even if impeachment supporters were able to get articles out of the committee, they face questions about their ability to win the near-unanimous support they'd need from the broader conference.

A GOP lawmaker, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly, said the effort to impeach Mayorkas had died down “some.” The Republican added that while they remained undecided on impeaching Mayorkas, and believe the administration has made bad policy choices on the border, "incompetence isn’t an impeachable offense.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who has been perennially skeptical about trying to boot Mayorkas, said he wasn’t hearing much about it from his colleagues. He added that impeaching Mayorkas wouldn’t ultimately change the administration’s border strategy.

“In the end, what are you going to get?” Bacon asked. “You’re going to get Biden’s policies.”

Still, Mayorkas' staunchest critics have multiple trip wires they believe could force the issue back into the spotlight.

One example is the Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government, which Roy is eyeing as a potential leverage point. He's vowed to oppose any spending bills that fund the Department of Homeland Security without enacting immigration and border reforms, and he considers impeaching Mayorkas as one of those necessary changes.

“I think the case has been made. And I think we are going to see a pretty big fight play out between now and Sept. 30 about what the next steps are with respect to dealing with the border,” Roy said.

Republicans are also months deep into multiple investigations focused on Mayorkas, the border and the department writ large, which could come to a head in the back half of the year. The party has used a series of Judiciary Committee hearings to try to make their case against Mayorkas, including the secretary’s July appearance before the panel.

House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — who has said Mayorkas deserves to be impeached — outlined additional data he wanted from the department at the end of the hearing. Another member of the panel, Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), is holding a joint field hearing Tuesday on “Biden’s border crisis.”

But Biggs, who has already introduced impeachment articles against Mayorkas, acknowledged during a tele-townhall last week that the House GOP remains short of the votes it would need to move forward.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) is in the middle of a five-phase investigation into the agency, which he estimated would wrap up around the end of September. But Green cautioned they would not make a final decision about any impeachment referrals to the Judiciary Committee until it is completed.

"Clearly it’s not as exciting” as other GOP investigations, Green replied when asked about the conference's waning Mayorkas focus. "But we ain’t stopping.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Trump’s communications are ‘erratic and unmoored from truth,’ says former Georgia Lt. Gov

Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan (R) said Monday that former President Trump and his legal team’s recent communications are “erratic” and “unmoored from truth.”

Duncan made the comments when discussing the former president's continuing legal challenges during an appearance on CNN’s “The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer.”

They were in response to Blitzer mentioning that Trump’s legal team argued on Monday that the former president should not be the subject of a protective order to limit what he can say in his Jan 6. criminal case. 

“Well, I think everything's on the table for that team, right? Everything. He's very unpredictable,” Duncan told Blitzer. “We've seen this play out, even the communications that we've seen in the last 48 to 72 hours that he has put out on social media just seem erratic and unmoored from truth.”

Judge Tanya Chutkan recently ordered Trump’s attorneys to respond to Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for a strict protective order by Monday, which would prevent Trump from discussing case evidence in public.

Duncan, who served as lieutenant governor of Georgia from 2019 to 2023, also told Blitzer that Trump’s recent social media posts and remarks on his legal challenges remind him of Trump's lead up to the Capitol attack on Jan. 6. 

“It's very concerning,” Duncan added. “And unfortunately, there's similar hallmarks I'm watching play out in the last few days, that really bring me back to a terrible place and that was the lead up to January 6, where it's just a continued deluge of misinformation, and a feverish pitch through 10-second sound bites and short little social media posts.”

Trump was indicted last Tuesday by a Washington, D.C., grand jury on four charges stemming from his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to President Biden.

Smith’s 45-page indictment accuses Trump of trying to conduct a campaign to block the transfer of power. It alleges Trump was the director of a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and played a central role in an attempt to block the certification of votes on Jan. 6.

Duncan also said that he received a subpoena to testify before a grand jury investigating the efforts Trump and his allies made to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.

In Texas, Ken Paxton legal team works to invalidate every article of impeachment before trial

By Robert Downen The Texas Tribune

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Attorneys for suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a flurry of motions over the weekend that seek to dismiss additional articles of impeachment, arguing that the allegations are baseless or fall under the legitimate duties of the attorney general’s office.

In the documents, filed before Saturday’s deadline for pretrial motions and made public Monday, Paxton’s attorneys routinely accused House impeachment managers of using “any means necessary” to “overturn the will of voters” who elected Paxton last year.

Paxton’s team also downplayed the severity of the accusations against him — including those surrounding his firing of whistleblowers from his office who reported him to law enforcement for alleged bribery — and argued that many of the claims are without merit or do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

In addition to challenging individual articles, Paxton’s lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing all 20 articles of impeachment that were approved 121-23 by the House in May, arguing that the accusations are unsupported by evidence.

The House impeachment managers have until Aug. 15 to respond in writing to all pretrial motions. Paxton’s impeachment trial, with 30 Texas senators acting as jurors, is set to begin Sept. 5.

Combined with earlier filings, the latest pretrial motions set up a dramatic confrontation in the early moments of Paxton’s trial — a series of votes by senators on whether to eliminate some or all of the articles of impeachment before evidence can be presented. A majority of senators — 16 — can approve dismissal of an article, placing an early test on the determination of the chamber’s 19 Republicans to allow a trial on the allegations.

If all articles were to be dismissed, the impeachment trial would be over before it began. If any article survives, the trial would move to opening statements by lawyers for the House impeachment managers. Paxton’s lawyers could deliver their opening statements immediately afterward or defer until later in the trial.

The new filings are the latest in which Paxton’s team, led by Houston lawyer Tony Buzbee, has sought to have articles tossed.

Last week, Paxton’s team filed two motions to dismiss 19 of the 20 articles of impeachment, arguing that all but one — Article 8 — ran afoul of the “prior-term doctrine,” which they said bars officials from being impeached for conduct that predates their most recent election. They argued that almost all of the allegations outlined by House investigators were known to voters when they reelected him to his third six-year term in 2022.

But while those filings attacked the impeachment articles on procedural grounds, the new flurry of motions individually addressed the merits of the allegations against Paxton. The lawyers also sought to dismiss Article 8, which deals with Paxton’s request that the Legislature finance his $3.3 million lawsuit settlement with the whistleblowers — a request that prompted the initial House investigation into him earlier this year.

In its filing, Paxton’s team framed the lawsuit settlement as a “money-saving agreement” of “ordinary employment litigation.” It also accused the House of having “done violence to our democracy” by attempting to impeach Paxton over what it described as a “routine” function of his job.

The new filings also hint at Paxton’s potential defense strategy for allegations involving Nate Paul, a political donor and Austin real estate investor who was arrested in June on federal felony charges of lying to financial institutions to secure business loans. House investigators accused Paxton of misusing his office to help Paul’s business and to interfere with criminal investigations into Paul’s activities. In return, investigators alleged, Paul paid to remodel Paxton’s Austin home and hired a woman with whom Paxton allegedly had an extramarital affair.

In the filing, Paxton’s team downplayed the relationship with Paul and argued that there was no evidence that Paxton formed “an illegal agreement” to help Paul in exchange for a benefit — a “quid pro quo” required under state bribery laws.

“As they stand, the Articles allege nothing more than that the Attorney General had a personal relationship with a constituent and that the constituent found something the Attorney General did to be agreeable in some way,” Paxton’s attorneys wrote. “If that is enough to amount to a bribe, scarcely any elected official is innocent of the House’s notion of bribery.“

On the other side of the legal fight, House impeachment managers filed a motion Saturday requesting clarity on several Senate-approved trial rules. They asked that cross-examination not count toward the 24 hours allotted to each side to present evidence; that both sides exchange “all documents, photographs or other materials expected to be used at trial” by Aug. 22; and that House managers be allowed to use their wireless mobile devices while on the Senate floor during the trial.

Disclosure: Tony Buzbee has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Trump legal team singles out Biden’s ‘Dark Brandon’ post as capitalizing on indictment

Former President Donald Trump’s attorneys singled out a meme post from President Biden on social media in a court filing Monday arguing against the scope of a proposed protective order.

Trump’s attorneys made the filing in Washington, D.C., in the Justice Department’s case against the former president for his attempts to subvert the 2020 election results.

Prosecutors had asked for a protective order to limit how widely evidence could be shared in the wake of a social media post by Trump vowing to go after anyone who targeted him.

In response, Trump’s attorneys argued in part that the former president’s political opponents have campaigned on the indictment at a time when Trump is running for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

“President Biden has likewise capitalized on the indictment, posting a thinly veiled reference to his administration’s prosecution of President Trump just hours before arraignment,” his attorneys wrote.

The filing then includes a photo of a post on Biden's personal account on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, in which he wrote: “A cup of Joe never tasted better,” with a link to a mug with the "Dark Brandon” image of Biden with lasers shooting out of his eyes.

The tweet includes a short video clip of Biden sipping from the mug and saying he likes his coffee “dark.” It was posted at 11:18 a.m. Thursday. Trump’s court appearance took place roughly five hours later.

The “Dark Brandon” meme is a viral image and a winking nod to a more devious alter ego for the 80-year-old president. It stems from White House allies co-opting a taunt in which conservatives would chant “Let’s Go Brandon” as a coded message for “F--- Joe Biden.”

Biden's campaign sells merchandise with the image printed on coffee mugs and T-shirts, and Biden made a joking reference to the meme at the White House Correspondents Dinner this year.

Biden has yet to publicly comment on Trump’s indictment in Washington, and both the president and White House aides have remained adamant that they have had no discussion with Justice Department officials about the cases against Trump.

Still, Trump has relentlessly claimed that the charges against him are a case of election interference intended to harm his White House bid.

Trump is leading the Republican primary race by a wide margin, according to polls, but polling of a hypothetical rematch between Trump and Biden in 2024 shows a close race. A New York Times/Siena College poll published last week found a hypothetical match-up between the two to be deadlocked at 43-43 percent.

Federal workers told to leave early as severe weather threatens DC, Northeast

Federal workers have been told to go home early as severe weather is expected to hit the Washington, D.C., area and parts of the Northeast region of the country. 

In a news release Monday, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) said federal employees located in the D.C. area were authorized to leave their workplaces two hours earlier than expected, and that all employees must evacuate their buildings “no later than 3:00 at which time Federal offices are closed.”

The OPM added that emergency federal employees are expected to remain at their worksite unless otherwise directed by their employer. 

The National Weather Service (NWS) declared a tornado watch for D.C. and parts of the southeastern region of the country through 9 p.m. Monday. The NWS said widespread storms with strong winds, hail and tornadoes are likely to happen throughout the day across parts of the mid-Atlantic region and cautioned area residents to plan to be inside when the storm hits.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) also announced that it will prepare to deploy additional services.

“Due to severe weather expected today, we understand many are heading home. Our trains & buses are operating on time,” WMATA said in a statement. “We strongly advise our customers to avoid traveling later this afternoon.”

NWS’s Baltimore-Washington center already informed residents of Hagerstown, MD to take shelter as a severe thunderstorm capable of producing tennis ball sized hail is moving to their region.

Parts of Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky are under the tornado watch.

It's been a decade since the D.C. metropolitan area was placed under a Level 4 risk Tornado watch. According to NWS Prediction Center, a set of severe storms brought six tornadoes to the area in June 2013. 

Updated at 5:24 p.m.

Pelosi calls Trump indictments ‘exquisite,’ ‘beautiful’

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the federal indictments against former President Trump "exquisite” and “beautiful and intricate” in a new interview published Monday. 

“The indictments against the president are exquisite,” Pelosi said in an interview with New York magazine. “They’re beautiful and intricate, and they probably have a better chance of conviction than anything that I would come up with.”

Pelosi was referring to the two latest indictments against Trump unveiled by special counsel Jack Smith.

Last week, Trump was arraigned on four criminal charges related to his efforts to cling to power after losing the 2020 election. In June, he was indicted over his retention of classified documents after he left the White House.  

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases.

Pelosi, as Speaker at the time, pushed for an inquiry into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, ultimately creating the Jan. 6 select committee, which many credit with providing the basis for the latest indictment against Trump on related charges.

In the interview, which was conducted Friday afternoon, Pelosi resisted taking credit for any of the work of the committee, apart from appointing its members. She praised the panel for providing a “beautiful balance” in its approach and a “seriousness of purpose.” 

Pelosi warned in the interview about what she saw as the dangers of another Trump term in the White House.

“Don’t even think of that,” she said when asked in the interview. “Don’t think of the world being on fire. It cannot happen, or we will not be the United States of America.”

“If he were to be president,” she added. “It would be a criminal enterprise in the White House.”

Pelosi last week called the latest charges against Trump “heartbreaking,” noting in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, “It’s heartbreaking for our country to have a president of the United States with this list of charges against him.”

Team Trump wants a jury as diverse as a Trump rally

Donald Trump is trying to make federal criminal charges go away the same way he’s dealt with every other difficult thing in his life: through an aggressive media campaign coupled with delay and denial. And, being Trump, he has surrounded himself with lawyers who are happy to go along with it, even though blustery media appearances are not typically the best way to defend a client against federal criminal charges.

The judge and prosecutors are unlikely to be impressed by this approach, but when you consider the media response it’s getting, it’s not hard to see why Trump likes it so much. Take this truly shameful moment on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday. Trump and his lawyers are waging a campaign to, depending how you look at it, get Trump’s trial moved from Washington, D.C., to West Virginia, or simply convince a lot of people that Trump’s trial was unfair because it wasn’t moved out of Washington, the place where he committed his crimes. That led to this exchange: 

MAJOR GARRETT: Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?

JOHN LAURO: Absolutely. We—we would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury. One that—that reflects the—

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have any expectation that will be granted?

JOHN LAURO: That reflects the—the—the—the characteristics of the American people.

It's up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case.

MAJOR GARRETT: Speaking of the judge—

JOHN LAURO: They're close to D.C. and a much more diverse—

MAJOR GARRETT: Understood.

West Virginia is “much more diverse” than the District of Columbia, Lauro claimed, and Garrett’s response was simply “understood.” Well, Garrett may well understand, but his viewers don’t necessarily. This is a claim that requires some pushback and clarification. Partisanship is the one measure Trump and his lawyers care about here: West Virginia is heavily Republican, but it’s somewhat less heavily Republican than the District of Columbia is Democratic. That’s it. At the same time, West Virginia is extremely white, with much lower percentages of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian people than the United States as a whole. Trump and his lawyers are using “reflects the characteristics of the American people” and “more diverse” to mean “more Republicans and, related, also more white people,” and Garrett has absolutely nothing to say about that.

Campaign Action

When Trump himself argued on Truth Social last week for a move to West Virginia, he didn’t bother with this “more diverse” nonsense, admitting that the issue was all about the partisan breakdown of the location. West Virginia was “impartial” and “politically unbiased,” he claimed, while it was “IMPOSSIBLE to get a fair trial in Washington, D.C., which is over 95% anti-Trump, & for which I have called for a Federal TAKEOVER in order to bring our Capital back to Greatness.” When he returned to the subject during his weekend of Truth Social ranting, it seems someone had gotten through to him that he couldn’t admit he just wanted a location with fewer Democrats, because he leaned more heavily on his claim that he was just too unpopular in the District due to his call for a federal takeover—a call he’s actively promoting as a strategy to argue for a venue change.

For the record, the U.S. Constitution has this to say about where crimes should be tried:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Speaking of the Constitution, Lauro also continued trying to push the claim that Trump wasn’t committing crimes, he was merely exercising his free speech when he tried to overturn the 2020 election—another claim the media has treated far too credulously. On “Meet the Press,” Chuck Todd did a slightly better job pushing back against Lauro’s most ridiculous claims than Garrett on “Face the Nation,” with Todd repeatedly noting that the crimes Trump is being charged with are different than the many ways he legally exercised his right to free speech and took his election theft claims to court—where he lost again and again.

Todd and Lauro also had this exchange for the ages:

CHUCK TODD:

[Pence] said the president asked him to violate the Constitution. He said the president asked him to violate the Constitution, which is another way of saying he asked him to break the law.

JOHN LAURO:

He never said, he never said—no, that's wrong. That's wrong. A—a technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law. That's just plain wrong. And to say that is contrary to decades of legal statutes.

A “technical violation of the Constitution,” the man said.

Trump and his lawyers want to try this case in the media for good reason. His rabid fans will buy every word of it and it will at least give less-committed Republicans something to work with in justifying their continuing support of him. And every reporter and interviewer who lets Lauro make these claims without robust and fully informed pushback is aiding Trump’s defense in the public eye if not in the courts.

New York is key to Democratic House, and Jeffries is in the redistricting driver’s seat

Editor's note: This file has been updated to correct Rep. George Santos's party affiliation.

Democrats are looking to pick up three, four or even five seats in New York to win back the House majority and make Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) the Speaker.  

Jeffries, the House minority leader, has longtime relationships with leaders in the New York state Senate and state Assembly and will have a major say over the state’s congressional map, New York Democratic sources say. The state is drawing a new map after a court determined a version drawn by a court-appointed special master for the 2022 midterm election was a temporary solution.

Current and former Democratic officeholders and party officials from New York who spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity say Jeffries will wield significant influence over the redistricting process — and they note that New York stands to benefit substantially if he becomes Speaker.  

If Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) keeps his job as Senate majority leader and Jeffries gains the Speaker’s gavel, it would put two New Yorker Democrats in charge of Congress.  

“If they don’t listen to Jeffries, they’re crazy,” one Democratic official said of the upcoming redistricting process. “They’re going to want to follow Hakeem’s lead. He’s very well-respected, he’s very well-liked.” 

Among the seats New York Democrats are eyeing is the one belonging to disgraced Rep. George Santos's (R-N.Y.). Santos represents the state’s 3rd Congressional District, to which they are likely to add more Democratic voters to ensure it flips.  

Retired Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) is eyeing a comeback to Congress and has indicated he would run as the Democratic candidate for his old seat in the 3rd District if Santos steps down or is expelled from Congress before his term is over, New York Democratic sources say.  

If Santos stays in his job through the end of the 118th Congress, which he says he intends to do, there would be a crowded Democratic primary race to run against him in the 2024 general election. In that case, Suozzi is expected to announce his decision about whether to run again for Congress in the fall.  

Former state Sen. Anna Kaplan, The Next 50 co-founder Zak Malamed and Nassau County legislator Josh Lafazan are in the mix of candidates who would run for the seat if there isn’t a special election to replace Santos.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (Wash.), chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), announced in April that House Democrats will target five other first-term New York Republicans in addition to Santos: Reps. Nick LaLota, Anthony D’Esposito, Mike Lawler, Marc Molinaro and Brandon Williams.  

A gain of six congressional seats would be enough to flip the House to Democratic control. Republicans currently hold 222 seats while Democrats have 212. 

One of those targeted incumbents, Molinaro, told reporters last week that New York voters are getting “exhausted” by the battles over the House district boundaries. 

“However the lay of the land, you know, adjusts, I’ll roll with the punches. I do think, though, voters are getting a little bit exhausted by the multiple changes in districting and it’s just an utterly confusing situation for too many voters,” he said.  

Democrats are feeling increasingly optimistic about picking up three to five congressional seats in New York next year, given their party’s disappointing performance in the state last year, when Republicans picked up three seats and defeated DCCC Chairman Patrick Maloney.  

“Anything is possible. I wouldn’t take any seat off the table, personally. So we will be fighting to mobilize in all of the districts held by Republicans,” said Rep. Grace Meng, who represents New York’s 6th District in Queens.  

Former Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) says Democrats should be able to pick up four or five seats in the Empire State. He ranked the 3rd and 4th congressional districts on Long Island and two upstate as the best pick-up opportunities.  

He also predicted there will be “close coordination” among Democratic leaders in New York and Washington and “Jeffries will get what he wants.” 

Putting out a Democratic-friendly map is no sure thing. The New York Independent Redistricting Commission is in charge of writing the map, which must be approved with two-thirds majorities in both state chambers.  

Democrats got too greedy in the last election cycle and had their map thrown out, but party officials tell The Hill they believe the legislature can draw up a new map that will help Democrats pick up as many as five House seats while staying within the bounds of state law. 

Several Democratic officials who spoke to The Hill predicted that the bipartisan Independent Redistricting Commission will fail to reach an agreement and that drawing a new map will fall to the New York state legislature, where Democrats control supermajorities in both chambers.  

If that happens, they say Jeffries will wind up playing a significant role in influencing the new congressional district boundaries. 

The redistricting debate is heating up behind the scenes because New York officials are talking about moving up their 2024 primary to earlier on the calendar — April 2 instead of June 23.   

Jeffries told reporters at the U.S. Capitol last week that he just wants New York to have a “fair map” and urged the Independent Redistricting Commission to do its job.  

“All we want is fair maps to be drawn all across the country,” he told reporters. “We want a fair map in Alabama, a fair map in Louisiana, fair maps in North Carolina and Ohio, in Wisconsin, certainly fair maps in New York.”  

Jeffries kept his distance from the redistricting debate and insisted it will be up to the Independent Redistricting Commission to draw the new lines. 

“In the case of my home state, I think it’s important that the Independent Redistricting Commission, which is bipartisan in nature be given the opportunity to complete its work to try to find common ground and present a congressional map to the legislature that gives every community — urban New York, suburban New York, rural New York — an opportunity to have its voices heard in deciding in what the congressional delegation emerging from New York should look like,” he said. 

A New York appeals court ruled last month in Democrats’ favor that the state must redraw its congressional map before the 2024 presidential election. Republicans, however, have appealed that ruling to New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, putting the legal battle on hold until September.  

If the Court of Appeals rules for Republicans, then Democrats will be stuck with the same map they had in 2022.  

In the meantime, the Independent Redistricting Commission will be able to hold hearings and solicit input for a new map.  

But Democratic officials are skeptical they will come up with any proposal that can muster the necessary bipartisan support within the commission as well as approval by supermajorities in the state Senate and state House.  

“Either the Independent Redistricting Commission makes a deal or more likely gives it their best effort, fails and then the Democratic legislature steps in, which is what happened last time but they overreached and the rest is history,” said a Long Island-based Democratic party official and former officeholder.  

Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School and an expert on redistricting, said if the Independent Redistricting Commission deadlocks, Democrats in the state legislature should be able to come up with a map that meets court approval.  

“I think the legislature can draw a lawful map that complies with the criteria included in the Constitution,” he said. “It’s the legislature’s responsibility to comply with the new constitutional amendment’s rules and to produce a map that meets population equality, minority voting rights and other criteria. 

“If it does that, then they’re not going to have a problem. If they violate any of the criteria, they could end up in court all over again."  

Mychael Schnell contributed. 

--Updated at 7:41 a.m.