policy

President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to suspend the entry into force of the potential TikTok ban until his administration can pursue a “political solution” to the issue.

The request got here as TikTok and the Biden administration filed opposing briefs with the court wherein the corporate argued that the court should strike down a law that would ban the platform by January 19, while the administration emphasized its position that the law a national security risk is needed for abolition.

“President Trump takes no position on the merits of this dispute. Instead, “he respectfully requests that the Court consider suspending the statute’s January 19, 2025 divestiture deadline while it considers the merits of this case,” said Trump’s amicus transient, which isn’t a celebration to the case Case supported and authored by D. John Sauer, Trump's pick for attorney general.

The argument presented to the court is the most recent example of Trump meddling in national issues before taking office. The Republican president-elect has already begun negotiating with other countries over his plans to impose tariffs, and earlier this month he intervened in a plan to fund the federal government, calling for the rejection of a bipartisan plan and sending Republicans back to the negotiating table.

As he assembles his government, he has held meetings with foreign leaders and business representatives at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, including a gathering last week with TikTok CEO Shou Chew.

Trump has modified his stance on the favored app after attempting to ban it on national security grounds during his first term. He joined TikTok during his 2024 presidential campaign, and his team used it to have interaction with younger voters, particularly male voters, by distributing content that was often macho and aimed toward going viral.

He said earlier this 12 months that he still believes TikTok poses national security risks but that he opposes a ban.

Friday's filings come ahead of oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 10 on whether the law requiring TikTok to separate from its China-based parent company or face a ban unlawfully restricts speech and subsequently violates the previous Constitutional amendment violates. The law was signed by President Joe Biden in April after passing Congress with broad bipartisan support. TikTok and ByteDance then filed a lawsuit.

Earlier this month, a panel of three federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the law, prompting TikTok to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Trump's transient said he opposes a ban on TikTok at this juncture and “seeks the opportunity to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office.”

In their letter to the Supreme Court on Friday, lawyers for TikTok and its parent company ByteDance argued that the federal appeals court erred in its decision and based its decision on “alleged 'risks' of China pressuring the U.S. platform.” “TikTok could exercise control over TikTok’s US platform.” foreign subsidiaries.

The Biden administration has argued in court that TikTok poses a national security risk due to its ties to China. Officials say Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to release details about TikTok's U.S. customers or use the platform to spread or suppress information.

But the federal government “acknowledges that it has no evidence that China has ever made such an attempt,” TikTok’s legal filings say, adding that the U.S. fears are based on future risks.

In its filing Friday, the Biden administration said TikTok's corporate structure creates risks because TikTok is “integrated with ByteDance and relies on its proprietary engine developed and maintained in China.”

policy

Two members of the US House of Representatives initially urged the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to analyze the health risks of hair straighteners, that are used primarily by black women, in 2023. Now they’re asking the agency why it has twice postponed its planned date for proposing a ban on products containing formaldehyde, which studies have shown to guide to increased cancer rates.

Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Shontel Brown of Ohio urged the FDA in a letter to finalize the proposed rule banning certain hair straighteners for salon and residential use. Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York joined Pressley and Brown in signing the letter, which is dated Tuesday.

The FDA announced a possible rule for 2023 and had initially set an April goal date for publishing the proposal. The date was then pushed back to July after which to September.

The letter from Pressley, Brown and Velazquez – all of whom are running for re-election this 12 months – asks FDA Commissioner Robert Califf to offer specific reasons for the delay.

Pressley told the Associated Press that one reason black women seek hair straightening treatments is because they face discrimination due to their hair.

“If you Google unprofessional hairstyles for work right now, you're inundated with images of black women,” said Pressley, who also believes further delay may lead to more health issues for communities of color. “Everything from protective hairstyles, Senegalese twists or braids like I wore for many years, to Afros or locs… I just want everyone to be able to show up fully, authentically, with no regrets, without fear, without discrimination.”

It's not unusual for the FDA to have issues on its regulatory agenda for years. For example, a draft of a proposed ban on menthol cigarettes was released in 2022, however the deadline for finalizing the rule was pushed back twice before being postponed indefinitely in April.

When asked in regards to the letter, an FDA spokesperson told AP that officials would respond on to lawmakers. Last month, the agency said the proposed ban was still one among its top priorities and was within the legislative process, but couldn’t comment to AP on the timing or content of the proposal.

Black women and ladies of other ethnicities have been using chemical hair straightening treatments for a long time, and lots of the straighteners, creams and keratin treatments contain formaldehyde – a chemical utilized in pesticides and to preserve dead bodies.

A 2022 study from the National Institutes of Health found that folks who used hair straighteners had an increased risk of developing uterine cancer. A 2023 study from Boston University found that postmenopausal women who used hair straighteners most steadily had a greater than 50% increased risk of uterine cancer than women who used them rarely.

Thousands of lawsuits allege that cosmetic firms that make a number of the hair straighteners misrepresented the products' “health effects” and exposed plaintiffs to chemicals that increased the danger of uterine and ovarian cancer. Some also claim they became infertile after using the products.

In an October social media video, the FDA reminded that there is no such thing as a ban yet and that the agency plans to work with the cosmetics industry to encourage them to develop alternative hair straightening products.

At the primary public meeting since high lead levels were discovered at 22 Oakland Unified State College schools, district officials condemned the shortage of communication, pointed the finger at those responsible and asked for extra funding and resources.

“The delayed communication of lead test results was completely unacceptable. I sincerely apologize for the stress and anxiety this has caused to our schools, our students and their families,” said district schools Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell. “We take full responsibility, including a full personnel investigation, for the deficiencies and are committed to ensuring such failures do not occur in the future.”

The district made headlines last week when it announced that prime levels of lead had been present in nearly 200 faucets and fountains within the district's public schools.

Faucets in nearly two dozen schools contained lead levels above the state and federal limit of 15 parts per billion, the district said. And while the district said a lot of the 1,083 faucets tested met Oakland Unified's stricter limit — 5 parts per billion — 70 water coolers and taps also were above the state and federal limit.

A faucet within the cafeteria at Cleveland Elementary School had a lead level of 480 parts per billion, while a kitchen sink at Edna Brewer Middle School had a lead level of 540 parts per billion.

The district's results sparked outrage amongst community members, who expressed concern about how long it took officials to notify families and staff of the test results.

District leaders said at Wednesday's meeting that a median of 62 days passed between receiving water samples and notifying sites. They described the delay in communication as a confidential personnel matter that’s currently under investigation.

The meeting on Wednesday evening, attended by greater than 100 parents, students and staff, featured over an hour of vitriolic comments from the general public and at times downright chaos.

Board members struggled to manage the group, which shouted back during officials' statements and exceeded the one-minute limit per speaker – at the same time as district leaders moved to chop off their microphones.

Community members criticized the district for failing to deal with the “historic” problem of lead in schools' drinking water and for putting the blame on “lower-level personnel.” Yet that very same evening, the district was scheduled to renew the superintendent's nearly $400,000 contract.

“The most heartbreaking thing I had to tell my kids was that the water is not safe to drink,” said Chris Jackson, a special education teacher at Fremont High School. “The fact is, we don't just need good, clear communication. We need good, clear water.”

Board Vice President Mike Hutchinson said the elevated lead levels are attributable to the district's “aging infrastructure” and college facilities, which he said are on average 50 years old.

Hutchinson also called on the town and county to help the district in repairing and improving facilities.

“We need help from the state and federal government to improve our infrastructure,” Hutchinson said. “Our local infrastructure bonds can't get us out of this… We need everyone on board. We don't have the money… to fix this right away.”

The United States Supreme Court has given former President Donald Trump perhaps probably the most favorable legal decision he could reasonably have expected in his fight against federal charges over his attempts to overturn the final result of the 2020 election.

Judges split along ideological lines into a 6-3 decision on July 12024, during which the conservative-dominated court declared that a former president has “a certain immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office.”

However, the bulk’s use of the word “some” obscures the extent to which their opinion makes it rather more difficult for Special Counsel Jack Smith to Trump for measures surrounding the 2020 electionslet alone winning the case.

And depending on the extent to which future presidents make the most of the broad legal protections the court affords them, the ruling could also bring about fundamental changes within the system of checks and balances among the many three branches of presidency and undermine the judicial system's ability to make sure presidential compliance with the law.

Course of the case

The case concerned whether the previous president might be prosecuted for his actions related to the 2020 election. Smith originally filed criminal charges against Trump in August 2023, alleging that Trump violated 4 criminal laws, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to violate voters' rights.

Trump argued in an appeal that he couldn’t be prosecuted because he enjoyed absolute immunity for all “official acts” during his term in office.

Prosecutors responded that the president was not “above the law“And given the safeguards in place within the criminal justice system designed to mitigate politically motivated prosecutions, Trump must be held legally accountable.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan previously agreed with the federal government and rejected Trump's appeal in December 2023. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with their decision, writing in February 2024: “President Trump has develop into Citizen Trump’ and due to this fact enjoyed no special protection from criminal prosecution.

After initially declining to listen to the case, the Supreme Court agreed to simply accept it on February 28, 2024, and heard oral arguments on April 25, 2024.

The verdict got here after a delay that many considered excessive and even deliberate.

Setting boundaries

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for almost all, rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, and the administration's claim that a former president will not be “above the law” and will be prosecuted for any acts committed while in office.

Instead, the court ruled that among the crimes Trump was accused of were protected by immunity, but others might not be.

The judges sent the case back to the lower court in order that it could distinguish between the alleged crimes that the court now considers to be protected offenses and those who can still be prosecuted.

The landmark ruling set general limits on how much of a president's conduct is immune from prosecution. To accomplish that, the court first determined that a president is completely immune for actions which can be a part of his “core executive functions.” These include the powers expressly conferred on him by the Constitutioncomparable to the ability to pardon and the authority to dismiss executive officials, that are a part of his “exclusive authority” and during which neither Congress nor the judicial system may intervene.

With respect to the President's non-core powers, which include all powers not expressly listed within the Constitution, comparable to the formulation of domestic policy, the Court took a more nuanced approach.

Attempting to balance the “public interest in fair and effective law enforcement” with the necessity for the President to act “vigorously” and freely without fear of unjustified prosecution, the bulk concluded that the President enjoys a minimum of “presumptive immunity” for all acts that fall inside the “outer scope of his official responsibilities.”

The court didn’t make clear exactly which actions fall inside this “outer perimeter”.

In an earlier case Nixon vs. FitzgeraldFor example, in 1981, the Court ruled that former President Richard Nixon's instruction to the Secretary of the Air Force on how you can staff and organize the Air Force fell inside that outer perimeter. In its opinion within the Trump case, the Court emphasized that the act was official unless it was “obviously or palpably” outside that perimeter.

In these cases, the federal government must show that there may be “no danger of interference with the authority and functions of the executive branch” before it could possibly initiate prosecution.

The court also ruled within the immunity case that the president doesn’t enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for unofficial, private conduct.

Next stop: Back to the District Court

The judges said it was as much as the district court to find out which of Trump's actions were “official” and which were “unofficial” and due to this fact not protected by immunity.

It provided the lower court with some guidelines to follow.

First, immunity should extend to all acts that fall inside the “outer scope” of the president's duties. Moreover, the president's motives mustn’t play a task in determining whether an act was “official” or “unofficial.” The court also emphasized that “statements or private notes of the president or his advisers” referring to official conduct can’t be used at trial to support criminal charges related to unofficial presidential conduct.

Because of the ruling, the primary federal criminal trial of a former president is not going to begin anytime soon. Depending on how long it takes Judge Chutkan to come to a decision which features of the costs can still be prosecuted, the trial could well be delayed until after the election.

And if Trump is re-elected as president, a trial wouldn’t happen until after he leaves office. He could also order the Justice Department to drop the federal charges altogether.

“Lawless zone around the president”

In the Trump case, the Supreme Court was asked for the primary time to come to a decision whether and to what extent presidential immunity extends to the criminal prosecution of a former president.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by her liberal colleagues Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the bulk, writing that its decision created a “lawless zone around the president.” Sotomayor claimed the bulk ignored the letter of the Constitution, misinterpreted history and precedent, and created a “textless, ahistorical, and indefensible immunity that places the president above the law.”

In one other dissent, Jackson argued that the Court had invented a brand new type of obligation during which the president — and only the president — was exempt from criminal law. In her view, a future president who ordered the assassination of a political rival would have a minimum of a “fair chance” of avoiding prosecution.

It stays a minimum of somewhat unclear how the ruling will affect future presidents. If this case against Trump is indeed, as the federal government argues, a “one-off prosecution”, then the court may never again have to come to a decision to what extent criminal law applies to the pinnacle of a rustic’s government.

However, if the court’s decision releases future presidents to act corruptly, even criminallythen the “Reign for eternity“The demands expressed on this statement may have significant implications for the separation of powers between the three branches of presidency, potentially giving the President way more power than has ever been the case in all of American history. This may have enormous implications for the viability of the Presidency and the soundness, if not existence, of American democracy.