Trump asks Supreme Court to block sentencing in NY hush money case
President-elect Donald Trump petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to delay his sentencing in the New York hush-money case. He argued that proceeding Friday, Jan. 10 could disrupt national security and hinder the presidential transition.
Trump’s legal team contended that sentencing a president-elect poses significant risks to the federal government and national security. They argued presidential immunity should shield Trump and warned that moving forward creates what they call “a constitutionally intolerable risk.”
The legal team’s request references a 2024 SCOTUS ruling that expanded presidential protections. It granted former presidents broad immunity for actions deemed part of their official duties.
SCOTUS asked New York prosecutors to respond to the petition by Thursday morning, leaving a narrow window before the Friday deadline.
If the justices grant a stay, Trump’s sentencing could be delayed indefinitely, given the limited time before his January inauguration.
Once inaugurated, legal precedent suggests he may regain immunity from criminal prosecution.
Trump’s hush money case
The case stems from hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign.
A grand jury convicted Trump in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments intended to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.
Legal experts noted that such payments may violate campaign finance laws, as they could be viewed as unreported election expenditures.
The trial judge, however, indicated plans to issue an unconditional discharge, a sentence that avoids jail time, fines or probation. The judge cited the importance of preserving the presidential transition process and respecting the principles of presidential immunity.
Despite the absence of penalties, Trump’s legal team argued that a felony conviction carries significant consequences. These consequences include harm to his reputation and potential future restrictions.
Trump’s lawyers also claimed the case relies on evidence of his time in office, such as social media posts and testimony from former advisers. They argued that they should be immune under the expanded protections for former presidents.
Judge rejects Trump team’s arguments
Judge Juan Merchan rejected the Trump team’s arguments. He asserted that the case is unrelated to Trump’s official duties and does not intrude upon the executive branch authority. The judge ruled that the charges pertain to private actions taken before and during his first campaign.
Legal analysts highlighted the historical weight of the proceedings. If the sentencing proceeds, Trump would become the first president-elect formally sentenced as a felon. The case has drawn attention for its potential to reshape the understanding of presidential immunity, especially regarding actions taken outside official capacities.
SCOTUS is expected to decide as early as Thursday, Jan. 9, whether to grant Trump’s request. Its decision could set a significant precedent, not just for Trump’s case, but for the broader scope of presidential immunity and the handling of criminal cases involving future presidents.
At least 95 killed in 7.1 magnitude earthquake in Tibet
A powerful earthquake proves deadly in East Asia on Tuesday morning. And winter weather pounds the United States from the Great Plains to the East Coast. These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025.
7.1 magnitude earthquake kills at least 95 in Tibet
At least 95 people are dead Tuesday after a 7.1 magnitude earthquake rocked Tibet, China, according to Chinese state media. The quake occurred just after 9 a.m. on Jan. 7 near Shigatse, one of Tibet’s holiest cities.
The quake reached a depth of 6.2 miles, damaging buildings and sending people running to the streets in neighboring Nepal and India. Cities as far away as Kathmandu, Nepal’s capital city about 240 miles away, felt tremors.
The U.S. Geological Survey measured the quake at a magnitude of 7.1, while the China Earthquake Networks Center reported it at 6.8. Multiple aftershocks followed the initial quake.
In addition to the dozens of lives lost, local authorities said the disaster injured at least 130 people.
First winter storm of 2025 leaves at least 4 dead across multiple states
The system moved east on Monday, Jan. 6, from the Great Plains to the East Coast. It brought snow, blizzard conditions and ice. The storm hit cities like Kansas City and Cincinnati the hardest.
Authorities said a public works employee in Missouri suffered a fatal injury while working to remove snow. Two people in Wichita, Kansas, died in a weather-related crash, and one person in Houston, Texas, most likely died as a result of the cold weather, according to local authorities.
The storm knocked out power to hundreds of thousands of homes across at least a half-dozen states.
While the heavy snow ended, the danger remained. Forecasters said the winter system is drawing cold air behind it, meaning states across the entire U.S. will experience a cold front.
Pentagon transfers 11 Yemeni detainees from Guantánamo Bay to Oman
The Pentagon said the U.S. transferred 11 Yemeni detainees to Oman, which agreed to help re-settle them. Two of the detainees are former bodyguards for Osama Bin Laden and were being held at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.
None of the 11 detainees released were charged with crimes.
The move comes amid steps to reduce the population at the controversial U.S. military facility. Only 15 detainees remain at Guantánamo Bay’s detention facility, which the U.S. set up as the war on terror began after Sept. 11, 2001.
Of the 15 current detainees, only three are eligible for transfer. Three more are eligible for a periodic review, seven are involved in the military commissions process and two detainees were convicted and sentenced by military commissions.
In recent weeks, the Biden administration transferred four other detainees from Guantánamo, including one brought to the detention facility the day it opened in 2002. That person was never formally charged.
The move follows a recent ruling by a military judge that plea agreements with alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and two other accused terrorists are valid and binding. Those deals take the death penalty off the table for the three men, who remain at Guantánamo Bay.
Biden attends memorial service for New Orleans terror attack victims
President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden attended a memorial service Monday, Jan. 6, for the 14 victims killed in the New Year’s Day truck attack in New Orleans. The interfaith prayer service was held at the famous St. Louis Cathedral in the city’s French Quarter, less than a mile away from the scene of the Bourbon Street terror attack.
Jill and I traveled to New Orleans to stand with a community defined by strength and resilience.
To grieve. To pray. And let them know that America stands with them, and mourns with them. pic.twitter.com/26Phe203WF
The president spoke at the service, reassuring the people of New Orleans they are not alone and highlighting the city’s enduring strength and resilience amid tragedy. He referred to past devastation experienced by the city, including Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
“If there’s one thing we know: New Orleans defines strength and resilience,” the president said. “You define it, whether it’s in the form of this attack, from this attack, or hurricanes or super storms. This city’s people get back up.”
The president and first lady also visited the Bourbon Street memorial, where they placed flowers and prayed for the victims.
While in New Orleans, the Bidens met privately with grieving families, survivors and first responders.
Though both cases were dismissed, the special counsel is required to provide a report to Garland, who can then decide whether to make it public.
According to the letter and a legal filing, Trump’s lawyers and two former co-defendants in the documents case viewed a two-volume draft copy of the report over the weekend. They called the report “one-sided” and “slanted.”
In the letter, Trump’s lawyer requested Garland fire Smith, who is set to resign before Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, or let the decision on the release of the report be handled by Trump’s incoming attorney general, Pam Bondi.
The lawyers for Trump’s two former co-defendants in the documents case also asked the judge who dismissed the case to halt the report’s release, citing her ruling that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.
While it is not clear when the report will be released, the lawyers have asked the judge for a hearing on their request by Friday, Jan. 10, believing the release is “imminent.”
‘Shark Tank’ star Kevin O’Leary announces bid to buy TikTok
With millions of social media users counting down TikTok’s days in the U.S., one businessman is looking to prevent the ban from taking effect. “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary issued a press release Monday announcing his interest in purchasing TikTok.
O’Leary — known by “Shark Tank” fans as “Mr. Wonderful” — said he is partnering with former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt on the bid.
Speaking to Fox Business, O’Leary said he would need Trump’s help to seal the deal. O’Leary said he’s “protecting the privacy of 170 million American users” and “empowering creators and small businesses.”
TikTok faces a federal ban on Jan. 19 unless its China-based parent company, ByteDance, sells. The Biden administration and other federal lawmakers believe TikTok threatens national security, accusing the Chinese government of using it to spy on Americans. Lawmakers fear the app is being used to weaponize and influence content Americans view.
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments from ByteDance on why it should prevent the ban.
McDonald’s ends some DEI programs, cites Supreme Court ruling
McDonald’s is scaling back its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, pointing to a U.S. Supreme Court decision as the catalyst for the shift. The fast-food giant had previously set goals to improve racial and gender diversity across its workforce, from entry-level positions to top executives.
McDonald’s announced that many of its initiatives will end, including diversity training and external surveys measuring workplace inclusion.
The current diversity team is also being renamed the Global Inclusion Team.
In a statement on Monday, Jan. 6, the company said, “This name change is more fitting for McDonald’s in light of our inclusion value and better aligns with this team’s work.”
The move follows a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that deemed race-based admissions and other tactics at universities unconstitutional. The ruling prompted numerous companies to reconsider or halt their DEI programs.
In a statement, McDonald’s Chairman and CEO Chris Kempczinski said that inclusion remains part of the company’s core.
“We will continue to lead with empathy, treat people with dignity and respect, and seek out diverse points of view to drive better decision-making,” Kempczinski said.
The company rolled out its diversity initiatives in 2021 after multiple lawsuits, including claims of sexual harassment and racial discrimination against Black franchise owners.
According to McDonald’s, 30% of its leadership now comes from minority groups. The company also reported achieving pay equity between male and female employees in 2021.
McDonald’s joins a growing list of companies, including Walmart, Toyota, Harley-Davidson and John Deere, that are reducing their participation in DEI programs.
Meanwhile, Costco remains committed to its DEI initiatives, with public statements reaffirming its dedication to diversity practices.
Small business owners concerned as TikTok ban looms
The popular social media app TikTok could be banned in the U.S. in a matter of days and the looming threat has some small business owners concerned. Since the app launched in 2017, small business owners say they have used TikTok in several ways, from advertising and marketing to selling goods directly.
TikTok estimates the ban would cost the company more than $1 billion in revenue in a single month.
If the ban does take effect, small businesses could still turn to alternatives like Instagram Reels, Snapchat and YouTube Shorts. However, owners raised concerns that it may be harder to reach teens since TikTok tends to be their preferred social media app.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether the ban violates the First Amendment on Jan. 10.
President-elect Donald Trump, who is not set to take office until Jan. 20, the day after the ban is scheduled to take effect, asked the Supreme Court to consider a delay on the ban taking effect.
A look at US Supreme Court 2025 docket and a warning from Chief Justice Roberts
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is expressing concerns about the growing disregard for the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of major rulings expected in 2025. In his year-end report, Roberts emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial independence, urging that court decisions be honored regardless of their political implications.
“Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” Roberts wrote. “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. Judicial independence is worth preserving.”
Roberts also warned of the rise in violence directed at judges performing their duties. He noted that the number of hostile threats against judges has more than tripled in the past decade. One reason for the increase in threats, he suggested, is public officials who accuse the judiciary of political bias without credible evidence.
While acknowledging that public officials are entitled to criticize the judiciary, Roberts cautioned that “irresponsible rhetoric can fuel dangerous behavior.”
He added, “It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy. Most cases have a winner and a loser. Every administration suffers defeats in the court system — sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics. Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decisions of the courts, popular or not, have been followed, and the nation has avoided the standoffs that plagued the 1950s and 1960s.”
Roberts also issued a warning that court rulings must be followed and respected, just as the Supreme Court heads into a new year with several high-stakes cases on its docket. Some of these cases could have significant political and social implications.
Major cases in 2025
Attention is focused on these five major cases:
One of the most closely watched is the challenge to a proposed ban on TikTok, prompted by national security concerns due to the app’s ties to China. President Joe Biden signed a law that would ban the app unless it is sold to a U.S. company, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether the ban should proceed.
The Supreme Court will also hear a case challenging a Tennessee law that bans transgender surgeries and hormone treatments for minors. The ruling could set a precedent for similar laws in other states.
Another key case will determine whether the federal government can regulate “ghost guns,” firearms made from kits that lack serial numbers. The justices will consider whether such kits, which can be assembled at home, should be classified as firearms subject to federal regulation.
Justices will also hear a challenge to a Texas law requiring age verification for visitors to pornography websites. The ruling could influence similar laws in around 20 states.
Lastly, the Supreme Court will address the scope of environmental impact assessments required under the National Environmental Policy Act, with the justices set to consider how broad these environmental considerations should be for federal agency actions.
As the justices prepare to rule on these major cases, which are likely to bring political and societal changes, Chief Justice Roberts is getting ahead of these decisions with the warning. He says that the rulings, no matter the outcome, will likely have a negative impact on either side of the political spectrum. However, he reiterated the decisions will be the law of the land, as intended by the U.S. government.
Trump asks Supreme Court to pause potential US TikTok ban
Donald Trump is continuing to engage in the legal battle over a possible TikTok ban. In a brief filed Friday, Dec. 27, the president-elect said the court should block the law from taking effect on Sunday, Jan. 19, one day before he takes office.
Trump’s brief is unusual because it does not comment on the case’s merits. TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is suing the U.S. government, alleging a violation of its First Amendment rights.
Instead, Trump’s brief signaled his opposition to the ban and asked that he have the opportunity to resolve the issue, citing his election win as a factor.
“Through his historic victory on Nov. 5, 2024, President Trump received a powerful electoral mandate from American voters to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans –– including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok,” the brief states.
Earlier this year, Congress passed a law forcing TikTok to sell its U.S. operations or face a potential ban. The law set the deadline for ByteDance to sell or close TikTok one day before the next president took office.
The Biden administration is defending the law in court. They allege the app’s parent company operates primarily from headquarters in China. The company’s ties to China and its ruling Communist Party, they say, pose a grave threat to U.S. national security.
While Trump’s brief may not change much legally, it offers a clear signal that he opposes the ban. This could open the door to TikTok negotiating a deal to save its U.S. operations before the deadline.
The law allows a president to issue a 90-day extension if significant progress toward a sale exists.
TikTok has suffered at least one defeat along the way. An ideologically mixed three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted unanimously to reject TikTok’s challenge.
Biden breaks Trump’s record for single-term judicial confirmations
The Senate confirmed 235 of President Biden’s judicial nominees to a lifetime post, surpassing the record set during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term. This is the culmination of a four-year effort. Now approximately a quarter of active judges on the federal bench have been confirmed by the current Democratic majority.
“This is historic and will have huge and positive implications for the American people for generations to come,” Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said.
“When I ran for President, I promised to build a bench that looks like America and reflects the promise of our nation. And I’m proud I kept my commitment to bolstering confidence in judicial decision-making and outcomes,” Biden added.
Democrats tout the diversity of the nominees’ professional and racial background. They confirmed more women, more people of color and more public defenders than any other administration.
“Every single one of them was reviewed and found qualified or well-qualified by the American Bar Association. In the previous four years under President Trump’s term that was not the case,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said.
Republicans disagreed and tried speaking out against some nominees they thought were unqualified.
In November 2023, Durbin did not allow Republicans to voice their opposition to multiple nominees before a vote. The GOP minority warned him if Democrats don’t like a future Republican nominee, they will be treated in kind.
“You’re gonna have a lot of consequences coming if you go down this road. I cautioned a lot of you,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., told Democratic members during the hearing.
When Republicans take the Senate majority and the White House in January, they plan to continue the rapid confirmation pace that’s become the norm since 2016.
In addition to the regular openings that arise from retirements, Trump could have an additional 22 positions to fill if Congress passes a bipartisan bill to expand the federal judiciary to account for an increase in the country’s population.
Trump open to keeping TikTok ‘around for a little while’ after 2020 sanctions
President-elect Donald Trump is rethinking his opposition to TikTok with less than a month before it faces an outright ban in the U.S. Trump’s comments come after his electoral victory in November, which saw significant gains with young voters.
“I’m going to have to start thinking about TikTok,” Trump said at a conservative conference in Phoenix over the weekend of Dec. 21. “I think we’re going to have to, we’re going to have to start thinking because we did go on TikTok. And we had a great response with billions of views, billions and billions of views. They brought me a chart, and it was a record, and it was so beautiful to see. And as they looked at it, I said, maybe we got to keep this sucker around a little while.”
The Senate passed a law in April that would force the short-form video app’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest TikTok due to national security concerns. ByteDance has made efforts to have that law overturned, and the Supreme Court will hear its challenge next month. But if it doesn’t get a favorable ruling, and they aren’t able to sell off the app, it will be banned in the U.S. as of Jan. 19.
“With respect to TikTok, I want to put it in the broader context,” then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in July 2020. “We have been engaged in a constant evaluation about ensuring that we protect the privacy of American citizens and their information as it transits, so this doesn’t relate to any one particular business or company but rather to American national security.”
“We are now evaluating each instance where we believe that U.S. citizens’ data that they have on their phones or in their system or in their health care records — we want to make sure that the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t have a way to easily access that,” he added.
Since Trump was elected in November, he met with TikTok’s CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Dec. 16. Following that meeting, the President-elect said the app holds a “warm spot” in his heart.
If TikTok doesn’t win its legal challenge, there is still a $20 billion bid sitting on the table from a group led by former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt.
But recently, TikTok has had to deal with government intervention outside of the United States.
Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama announced Saturday, Dec. 21, the government will officially shut down the app in the country for the entirety of 2025. The move comes after the stabbing death of a teenager, which was the culmination of a social media feud at the end of a school day.
“The problem today is not our children, the problem today is us, the problem today is our society, the problem today is TikTok and all the others that are taking our children hostage,” Rama said of Albania’s TikTok ban.
A federal judge committed an ethics violation, according to a federal appeals court. The violation occurred when he questioned Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, another member of the federal bench.
A federal appeals court judge ruled that U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor broke ethics rules when he published an essay in The New York Times.
The essay criticized Justice Alito for displaying flags associated with President-elect Donald Trump’s political causes. The Wall Street Journal reported an appeals court judge found Ponsor violated the code of conduct binding all federal judges other than Supreme Court justices. The code doesn’t allow judges to criticize each other publicly.
The code of conduct also requires judges to refrain from politics. Alito doesn’t have to follow the code and he has denied that his actions signaled support for President-elect Trump.
Just days before, supporters of then-President Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement carried upside down flags in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.
Alito said his wife flew that flag in response to a confrontation with a neighbor at that time. But in later reporting, the neighbor told CNN the conflict occurred about a month after the flag flew upside down.
The Times later reported a second Alito flag incident. An “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War-era flag also embraced by “Stop the Steal” movement supporters, flew outside Alito’s New Jersey beach home in the summer of 2023.
Alito didn’t respond to the Times when they asked for comment for that story. He later wrote in letters to members of Congress that the flag was also his wife’s decision.
In his own Times essay, Ponsor wrote that, even without political intent, Alito shouldn’t have flown either flag.
Doing so, he wrote, “Is viewed by a great many people as a banner of allegiance on partisan issues that are or could be before the court. Courts work because people trust judges. Taking sides in this way erodes that trust.”
But it was Ponsor who the federal appeals court judge found liable.
Ponsor has since publicly apologized, saying he didn’t mean to cause harm and did so unintentionally.
“For these violations of the Code, unintentional at the time but clear in retrospect, I offer my unreserved apology and my commitment to scrupulously avoid any such transgression in the future,” Ponsor wrote.
Lawmakers from both sides have recently pushed for an official ethics code for Supreme Court justices. However, no official legislation has come up in Congress.
Alito concluded that his actions didn’t rise to the code’s standard of a justice needing to recuse when their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Montana Supreme Court upholds ruling in landmark youth climate case
Young climate activists are celebrating another victory after Montana’s Supreme Court ruled in their favor for a second time. A lawsuit brought by the activists claimed the government violated their constitutional right to a clean environment.
Montana obtains most of its energy from burning coal, making it a top oil and gas producer.
In 2023, a state judge sided with the climate activists. The judge ruled that the state violated their right to a “clean and healthful” environment. On Wednesday, Dec. 18, Montana‘s Supreme Court upheld that ruling in a 6-1 vote.
The court ultimately rejected the state’s argument that fossil fuel projects only produce a small amount of greenhouse gases. Montana also cited other states and countries contributing to carbon dioxide emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Melissa Hornbein, an attorney for the activists, said the ruling will push Montana to pursue clean and renewable energy practices.
“This ruling clarifies that the Constitution sets a clear directive for Montana to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, which are among the highest in the nation on a per capita basis, and to transition to a clean, renewable energy future.”
Statement by the attorney for the plaintiffs, Melissa Hornbein
A plaintiff named in the case, Rikki Held, said the landmark ruling serves as a victory for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change.
Meanwhile, Montana’s attorney general said the lawsuit was meaningless, and the overall argument has no effect on the rest of the world.
Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte said the decision is under review, but lawsuits like these are a waste of taxpayer money and will increase energy bills across the state instead.
Hawaii, New York and Pennsylvania are among states that have environmental protections enshrined in their constitutions, similar to Montana.