Oakland authorities this week withdrew a request to the family of slain police officer Tuan Le to repay him $461 in overpaid salary he received through the devastating ransomware attack on City Hall last 12 months.

The decision to forgive the debt got here after the Oakland Police Officers' Association sharply criticized city officials for demanding the “repayment” of the cash. The union called the payment demand “inhumane, outrageous, scandalous, heartless and unconscionable.”

Le was shot and killed just hours before dawn on Dec. 29 after responding to a burglary alarm at a marijuana plantation within the 400 block of the Embarcadero on the town's waterfront. His death was the primary killing of an on-duty Oakland police officer in nearly 15 years.

In an announcement, a city spokesman said Le was amongst 120 people arrested during the cyber attack in early 2023which Vast amounts of sensitive personal data stored by the town were disclosedThe impact included the necessity to pay the town's 5,000 employees through a distinct economic system, which led to some irregularities.

On Wednesday, the town said that “there is no further action required by Officer Le's family and we consider the matter closed.”

“The city stands with Officer Le's family and apologizes for any distress or inconvenience this matter has caused them. We will continue our full support,” the town's statement said.

On Wednesday, a judge ordered three men to face trial on murder charges in reference to Le's death. A fourth man had murder charges dropped after a judge ruled the person was not a “major participant” within the killing. However, he still faces several other offenses related to break-ins on the greenhouse earlier that morning.

Patriots

Although there was some speculation before the draft that the Patriots might trade the team's 2024 first-round pick, New England ultimately decided to maintain the third spot and choose quarterback Drake Maye.

While this logical conclusion seems inevitable in hindsight—the Patriots' recent head coach, Jerod Mayo, and team manager Eliot Wolf clearly made it some extent to construct the strategy around a rookie quarterback—it was not a whole foregone conclusion.

According to an excerpt from a recent episode of the HBO series “Hard blowsprogram that has been following the Giants' offseason, New England has at least discussed the possibility of trading away the team's top pick.

The clip “Hard Knocks” shows Giants general manager Joe Schoen calling Wolf to inquire about New England’s plans.

“What's going on?” Schoen began. “Are you still listening or are you making a decision?”

Wolf said the Patriots were “pretty comfortable” with keeping the team's pick and choosing a quarterback.

“But again, if you offer us like [picks] 1, 2, 3 this year, 1, 2 next [year]“I mean, I’m exaggerating,” Wolf remarked.

“This has to be something crazy?” Schoen interpreted, sensing that the Patriots wouldn’t surrender the pick and not using a substantial offer.

Ultimately, Schoen concluded that Wolf and New England wouldn’t part with the pick without having “multiple” picks in 2024 and 2025.

Wolf never finally agreed to the parameters and explained that the team was “in a situation where we are only [will] probably sit down and pick a quarterback, ?”

While the behind-the-scenes look provided an interesting hypothesis to ponder, draft night passed with none high-profile trades from the Patriots or Giants. New York opted to persist with the sixth pick, with Schoen taking wide receiver Malik Nabers from LSU.

When former President Donald Trump's lawyers argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 25, 2024, they are going to claim he’s immune from prosecution for official actions during his time within the Oval Office. The claim arises from his federal allegations is attempting to overturn the outcomes of the 2020 presidential electionbut also can discuss with the costs he’s facing Hoarding secret documents after leaving office.

No Supreme Court has decided this query, nor has any of its rulings definitively said what is taken into account an official act and what not. Numerous commentators have shouted on the judges To determine the case quickly.

But for the judges and for me as Scholar of American politics and lawperhaps no commentator is as convincing as the Supreme Court itself – especially in a ruling from 50 years ago.

Back then, in a case related to the Deepening of the Watergate scandalThen-President Richard Nixon claimed that each one conversations of a president during his term of office were confidential and couldn’t be subpoenaed as evidence by a court, even in the event that they contained information relevant to a criminal prosecution.

In 1974, the Supreme Court accepted, heard and decided Nixon's lawsuit inside two months, with Chief Justice Warren Burger stating that it had done so.because they were matters of urgent public importance.”

So far, the court has been slower to act on Trump's case, but could still take heed to its own urgent words from the past.

A slowly unfolding investigation

By 1974, the Watergate scandal had dragged on for nearly two years, tearing the country apart. The trigger was a break-in on the Democratic Party headquarters within the Watergate complex in Washington in May 1972 and mounting evidence of this Nixon had orchestrated a cover-up.

In the summer of 1973, the highly publicized Senate hearings on Watergate made public the existence of Taped recordings of conversations within the Oval Office. Access to the tapes became crucial to the establishment what Nixon knew in regards to the break-in and when he knew it.

In November 1973 Political pressure forced Nixon to release seven tapes to Judge John Sirica, who presided over a federal grand jury that investigated Watergate. Leon Jaworski, whom Nixon appointed as a special prosecutor, used these tapes Securing indictments against seven of Nixon's top aides for his or her efforts to cover up the break-in. The indictments were published on March 1, 1974 – albeit in secret. Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

A rapid series of court decisions

Based on evidence from transcripts of White House visits, Jaworski identified 64 additional tapes that likely contained relevant conversations and persuaded Sirica to subpoena them. Nixon's team appealed to the US Court of Appeals. On May 24, 1974, Jaworski filed suit Petition for certiorari before judgmentA rarely used legal mechanism urged the Supreme Court to intervene before the appeals court heard the case.

On May 31, six justices, including two Nixon appointees, granted Jaworski's request and scheduled oral arguments for July 8. One judge, William Rehnquist, declined to serve because he had worked in Nixon's Justice Department before his appointment to the court.

After oral hearing All eight justices rejected Nixon's claim of absolute executive privilege. They concluded that there was probable cause that the subpoenaed tapes were relevant to a criminal case, found no evidence that they might endanger national security, and guaranteed them that a judge would review them confidentially before doing in order that they reveal their content.

The Burger Court was filled with big egos and little rivalries. Nevertheless, all seven of his non-removed assessors quickly agreed with the boss's opinion, which was published on July twenty fourth. No further concurring opinions clouded the legal situation.

Nixon had hoped that a divided court or an unclear ruling would allow further delay. But a unanimous ruling from the chief justice he appointed convinced him to comply. “The problem wasn’t just that we had lost,” he wrote in his memoirs, “but we had lost so decisively.”

Two days after the court's decision, on July 26, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against Nixon. One of a very powerful pieces of evidence was certainly one of the recordings that the Supreme Court had ordered released. Called “smoking gun“Nixon was recorded instructing his chief of staff to instruct the CIA to prevent the FBI from investigating the break-in. On August 8, Nixon announced to the nation that he would do so resign the following day.

The Supreme Court had acted quickly and brought up the case on the earliest opportunity. That happened on May thirty first, and the hearing took place 38 days later, on July eighth. The court issued its decision 16 days later, on July 24. And just over two weeks later, Nixon was now not president.

Trump's delays

As the events of the Trump case unfolded in 2023, there have been parallels to the Nixon situation. As District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan Rejection of Trump's immunity claim was appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari before the decision.

The Supreme Court operated during John Roberts' time as Chief Justice often comply with these requests. But within the Trump case, it's the judges rejected thisoffers no explanation.

The appeal court only made its decision on February 6, 2024 He vigorously rejected Trump's claim to immunity. Smith again asked the Supreme Court to accomplish that Move the case quickly – And On February 28, the justices agreed to a review.

They scheduled oral arguments for 58 days later, on April 25. That's already more time than between adoption and the Supreme Court's decision in 1974. And 1974 was not a presidential election yr.

The importance of speed

I’m not the just one who believes the Trump case is of comparable – if not greater – importance to democracy.

The arguments in each of those cases challenge the principles of the limited government system created by the Founding Fathers Control and balancing of the manager, legislative and judicial branches.

It is just not yet clear when the Roberts court will rule, but in 1974 the justices were grateful “the public importance of the problems presented and the need for their rapid solution”.