Hunter Biden could face charges of illegally possessing a gun while he was using drugs following a bombshell court filing revealing prosecutors want to indict him by the end of September. 

The president’s son had reached a deal that would have allowed him to avoid trial for the firearms charges if he abided by parole conditions over 24 months.

But now charges that could land him up to 10 years in prison appear to be back on the table, according to a new filing signed by Special Counsel David Weiss.

‘The Speedy Trial Act requires that the Government obtain the return of an indictment by a grand jury by Friday, September 29, 2023, at the earliest,’ the filing read. ‘The Government intends to seek the return of an indictment in this case before that date.’

Hunter Biden is also under investigation for his foreign business dealings, which are also the focus of probes started by House Republicans in Congress. 

He was supposed to be spared from jailtime when Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware, and his lawyers inked a plea deal where the younger Biden would plead guilty to two misdemeanor crimes of failure to pay more than $100,000 in taxes. 

Hunter had made more than $1.5 million in income in 2017 and 2018.   

As part of the plea deal, he would avoid prosecution for the gun charge as long as he met certain conditions over a 24-month period. 

Hunter had lied on a 2018 application to buy a gun. 

A photo of the form shows he answered ‘no’ when asked if he was an ‘unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.’ 

Hunter wrote about his extensive drug use during that period of his life in his 2021 memoir, Beautiful Things.  

Republicans in Washington complained that the president’s son had gotten himself a ‘sweetheart deal.’ 

But it all fell apart when he was in the Wilmington, Delaware courtroom of the Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika in late July. 

Due to Noreika’s probing, daylight was discovered between the government and Hunter’s lawyers’ understanding of the plea deal and whether it provided blanket immunity – essentially whether it let the first son off the hook from facing any future federal charges. 

Noreika complained that the U.S. attorney’s office and Hunter’s lawyers had expected her to ‘rubber-stamp’ the deal.  

‘I’m not going to say I’m going to accept the agreement. I’m not going to say I’ll deny it,’ she said. 

The day in court ended with Noreika saying she would need additional briefings from the parties. 

Since then, Hunter’s defense attorneys have argued that despite the broader plea deal falling apart, the gun deal was ‘valid and binding,’ because it was signed.  

The deal was put under further scrutiny when two IRS whistleblowers accused the Justice Department of giving the president’s son special treatment. 

In August, Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, announced that Weiss, a Trump appointee but who got approval from the state’s two Democratic senators, would be elevated to the level of special counsel. 

Promoting Weiss and not bringing in a new special counsel from the outside to manage the Hunter Biden case raised the eyebrows of some Republicans in Congress who had been angered by the plea deal. 

‘Did they appoint him special counsel so he doesn’t have to testify before the Congress of the United States?’ GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley told DailyMail.com, reacting to the news. ‘If that’s your game – then I’d say there’s ulterior motives.’ 

Grassley pointed out ‘you can see this plea agreement that the judge didn’t take raises a lot of questions about him.’  

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy also suggested Weiss being elevated was a way to thwart ongoing House Republican investigations. 

‘This action by Biden’s DOJ cannot be used to obstruct congressional investigations or whitewash the Biden family corruption,’ the speaker said.  

It was the trial watched, reviewed, and – perhaps – even skewed around the world. And now, the sensational legal battle between Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard will once again be thrown into the spotlight as part of a bombshell new Netflix documentary. 

The April 2022 courtroom tussle between the Pirates of the Caribbean star, 60, and the Aquaman actress, 37, had the nation gripped from the out – with millions tuning in to watch them face off in court over abuse claims that Amber made against Johnny in a 2018 Washington Post op-ed. 

Everything from Johnny and Amber’s outfits to their facial expressions were analyzed by people all across the globe, it seemed as though every gossip site had their faces sprawled across their homepages, and you couldn’t even open apps like TikTok or Twitter without seeing another post about it.

Almost everyone involved became social media sensations – Johnny’s lawyers were turned into celebrities practically over night, and many of those who testified were hailed as heroes by the millions who avidly observed every second.

A wild conspiracy theory even made its away around the web that Johnny and his attorney, Camille Vasquez, were having a secret love affair – which only fueled more interest in the case. 

So what was it that sparked the public’s fierce obsession with the nasty court battle in the first place? Well, aside from involving two of Hollywood’s most elite, the trial contained a slew of bizarre moments that seemed to draw more people in every day.

At one point during the case, Amber’s lawyer accidentally objected to himself. And during another, a witness went viral after he issued an epic clap back to the mother-of-one’s legal team – after they accused him of only testifying because he wanted fame.

On top of the rumored romances, emotional outbursts, dramatic blowouts on the stand, and hilarious mishaps, Johnny and Amber’s bombshell accusations about one another throughout the six-week trial only added to the drama.

Arguably the most shocking moment was when Johnny alleged that Amber had pooped in their bed after they split – and he even provided images of fecal matter spread across his sheets.

The exes took every chance they could to hurl insults at one another. Every day, it seemed as though a another explosive revelation was brought to light and never-before-seen footage and images of the stars gave their fans a brand new look into the tragic and tumultuous relationship.

It was certainly a face-off that felt fit for screens, and now, it has become just that, as Netflix announced earlier this month that a new doc, called Depp v. Heard, will ‘examine the infamous defamation case that captured the world’s attention as the first Trial by TikTok, and question the nature of truth and the role it plays in our modern society.’

As we prepare for the upcoming doc, which will premiere on August 16, FEMAIL went ahead and recapped the most untamed moments from the Johnny and Amber trial – which in the end saw the jury rule in favor of the Edward Scissorhands alum. 

From the most surprising claims that the stars made about one another and the truth surrounding Johnny’s relationship with his lawyer to the star-studded celebrity who took to the stand to defend him and the strange animal that made an appearance – take a look back at the craziest things that went down during the highly-publicized case.

The explosive accusations: Johnny claimed that Amber POOPED in their bed after an argument – while she alleged that he did a ‘cavity search’ on her

Throughout the trial, both Johnny and Amber made a series of shocking accusations about one another.

Arguably the most bizarre was when the actor testified that his ex pooped in the bed they shared after they got into an explosive fight following a dinner for her 30th birthday on April 21, 2016.

He explained that Amber had released a ‘verbal barrage’ against him for being late to the celebration when they got home to their Los Angeles pad.

The star alleged that when he tried to leave, she ‘punched him in the face’ repeatedly before he was able to get out.

He then claimed that the next morning, his bodyguard sent him a photo of ‘human feces’ on the area that he sleeps.

‘On my side of the bed was human fecal matter,’ he told the court. ‘My initial response to that was, I mean, I laughed. It was so bizarre and so grotesque that I could only laugh.’

When he asked Amber about it, he claimed she said that her two dogs, Pistol and Boo, were to blame – but Johnny didn’t believe it.

‘She tried to blame it on the dogs. They’re teacup Yorkies. They weigh about four pounds each,’ he continued. ‘I lived with those dogs. I picked up their funk. It was not the dogs.’ 

A member of Johnny’s security team, Starling Jenkins, also testified that he accompanied Amber on a trip to Coachella the next day, and that he over heard her having ‘a conversation pertaining to the surprise she left in [Johnny’s] bed.’

He claimed her heard her call the incident a ‘horrible practical joke gone wrong.’ 

When Amber took the stand herself days later, she denied the allegations and again insisted that it was caused by one of the canines. 

‘First of all, I don’t think that’s funny. I was not, also, in a pranking mood,’ she said. ‘I don’t know what grown women does… That’s disgusting.’

She added that Boo has ‘bowel control issues’ and that it was Johnny who had ‘attacked’ her during their argument, not the other way around.

Another surprising moment came when Amber claimed that Johnny performed a ‘cavity search’ on her.

She said the incident occurred while they were on vacation together at a trailer park in Hicksville, California, near Joshua Tree, while the actor was searching for drugs.

‘He was looking for something. I went into the bathroom and as I come out he asked me where it is, and how long I’d been hiding it. I was like, “What you talking about?”‘ she testified.

‘[He said], “You know what I’m f**king talking about, be honest with me. Where are you hiding it.”

‘He starts patting me down, he ripped my dress. He’s grabbing my breasts, he’s touching my thighs, he rips my underwear off and then he proceeds to do a cavity search. He said he was looking for his cocaine, his coke. 

‘He just shoved his fingers inside me. I just stood there staring at the stupid light, I didn’t know what to do. He twisted his fingers around. I didn’t stay stop or anything.’ 

Some of the other explosive allegations made during the trial included Amber accusing Johnny of sexually assaulting her with a liquor bottle, and him claiming that she severed his finger after she threw the glass container at him. 

‘Let’s drown her before we burn her’: A series of very-dark texts sent from Johnny to actor Paul Bettany were brought to light during the trial, as well as shocking images of the actor passed out

When Johnny was on the stand, Amber’s lawyers brought up a series of very-dark texts that were sent from him to actor Paul Bettany, in which he claimed he wanted to ‘drown’ his ex before ‘burning her.’

The messages, which were sent in June 2013, read, ‘Let’s drown her before we burn her. I will f**k her burnt corpse afterward to make sure she is dead.’

‘You wrote that about the woman who would later become your wife,’ Amber’s attorney Benjamin Rottenborn asked Johnny, to which eh replied, ‘Yes.’

During the trial, Amber also shared a series of shocking pictures she said she took of Johnny while he was passed out due to intoxication.

‘He’d pass out, get sick, lose control of himself. People would pick him up and clean it and fix it,’ she said. 

‘And he wouldn’t either remember, or he would deny it, or he would accuse me of saying that this had happened when it didn’t. 

‘There was no one to back me up. [It was] just him, his employees, and everyone who had been taking care of him versus my word, and so I started to take pictures [to] say: “Look, this is happening.”‘ 

The jury was also shown a video that Amber had secretly recorded of her ex-husband smashing up his own kitchen cabinets in a drunken rage. 

The actor said of the footage: ‘Clearly I was having a bad time. I don’t know what with regard to, but being illegally recorded by your chosen other is quite fitting with the rest of the photographs and tape recordings.’

‘You’re the one who asked it’: Amber’s attorney was fiercely mocked online after he objected to his own question – leaving Johnny and his lawyers in stitches

One of the most talked about moments of the trial was when Amber’s lawyer Adam Nadelhaft actually objected to his own line of questioning.

The awkward incident occurred while Adam was asking Johnny’s house manager, Ben King, about the finger incident.

‘You didn’t know what could cause damage to Mr. Depp’s hand while you were there on March 8, correct?’ the attorney asked Ben.

But when Ben started to answer, he was quickly cut him off by Adam, who interrupted and said, ‘Objection, hearsay.’ 

‘Wait – you asked the question,’ Judge Penney Azcarate responded, clearly confused. ‘Next question.’

‘Oh, OK,’ a stuttering Adam added, before continuing on with his questioning. 

Johnny and his own lawyers appeared amused by the gaff and chucked to one another. 

It resulted in an uproar of social media posts from people who mocked Adam over his mishap. 

Courtroom romance? Many speculated that Johnny was having a secret love affair with his lawyer, Camille Vasquez, who became an internet sensation after she ‘annihilated’ Amber on the stand

Throughout the trial, many people on the internet became obsessed with Johnny’s lawyer Camille – thanks to her bold behavior in the courtroom, as well as her personal chemistry with the actor. 

Fans even started to wonder if romantic feelings had developed between her and Johnny after they noticed a slew of flirty interactions between them – including whispering in each other’s ears, giggling together, and sharing coy smirks with one another. 

Rumors of a budding romance were fueled after a video of the Pirates of the Caribbean star helping the lawyer untangle her iPhone charger went viral on TikTok. He was also spotted pulling out her chair for her. 

However, body language expert Judi James explained exclusively to DailyMail.com during the trial that the amorous moments between them were most likely not due to a secret affair, but instead, were all part of a plan to make Johnny seem like a ‘romantic hero.’ 

She said that linking him to a ‘fresh, smart, fragrant, and confident-looking woman’ like Camille would ‘destroy’ Amber’s recount of their toxic relationship. 

While Camille is very private when it comes to her personal life, some people on social media also pointed out that she appeared to wear an engagement or wedding ring during her court appearances.

In addition to her rumored romantic connection to Johnny, Camille received a lot of positive attention online after she cross-examined Amber on the stand, with some claiming that she ‘annihilated’ and ‘obliterated’ the star with her questions.

Camille accused Amber of ‘lying’ and pressed her on numerous inconsistencies she had made in her statements, and she even became short with the actress at one point when she started to talk to the jury.

‘There is no question pending so I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t make an argument to the jury. It’s inappropriate,’ Camille snapped at Amber. 

‘Camille Vasquez is definitely one of the best lawyers I’ve ever seen. She’s absolutely annihilating Amber Heard,’ wrote one person afterwards. 

‘That was an obliteration,’ agreed someone else. ‘Camille Vasquez you queen.’ 

Another added, ‘This is what a real strong independent woman looks like. Camille’s intelligence and talent is so inspiring for women everywhere. She is a true example of strength facing evil.’

‘Camille Vasquez gave Johnny Depp the voice he never had against Amber Heard’s vicious claims,’ gushed a different user. ‘You can tell how much she feels for him and how much she wants justice for him.’ 

After the trial, she landed a job as NBC’s legal analyst. 

The nail in Amber’s coffin: Famous supermodel Kate Moss delivered a sensational blow to the actress’ case against Johnny when she took to the stand to defend her ex

When Johnny’s ex Kate Moss took to the stand to defend him, it was said to be the final nail in the coffin for Amber.

Notoriously-private Kate put aside her infamous hatred of interviews and the media in order to rush to Johnny’s aid in court, delivering a sensational blow to Amber’s case by squashing the actress’ claim that Johnny once pushed her down a flight of stairs.

Amber made the claim while discussing an argument that she allegedly had with Johnny at the top of a staircase, when she said her sister, Whitney Heard, stepped in between them. 

‘She threw herself in the line of fire. She was trying to get Johnny to stop. Her back was to the staircase, and Johnny swings at her,’ she said.

‘I don’t hesitate and wait – I instantly think of Kate Moss and stairs, and I swung at him.’ 

But Kate, who dated the Hollywood heartthrob from 1994 to 1998, testified that Johnny actually helped her after she accidentally slipped and fell down the stairs during a trip they took to Jamaica together. 

‘We were leaving the room and Johnny left the room before I did. There had been a rainstorm and as I left the room I slid down the stairs,’ she recalled. ‘I hurt my back, and I screamed because I didn’t know what had happened.’

She said Johnny came running back to help her, adding that he ‘carried her to her room and got her medical attention.’ 

When asked directly by Johnny’s team if the Pirates of the Caribbean star ever pushed her down the stairs, Kate replied, ‘No.’ 

‘No, he never pushed me, kicked me or threw me down any stairs,’ she told the court. 

The actor and the British entrepreneur were together for just over three years in the ’90s, and when Johnny dumped Kate so he could focus his full attention on his career, she admitted she was devastated for ‘years’ over the breakup.

However, when she took the stand to defend her ex in court, it appeared as though she had nothing but warm feelings towards him, smiling at the mere thought of her past love with the movie star.

Johnny also struggled to contain his joy, letting out a small grin as she spoke to the court room about their ’90s romance.

Many viewers of the trial were quick to notice the exes’ happy compositions throughout the testimony, and they started to suggest that the pair should date again.

Some social media users became convinced that they were going to reignite their former flame, and the internet was flooded with tweets from enthralled Twitter users who called Kate his ‘true love.’

Witnesses turned into celebrities: Many of the people who took to the stand became viral sensations – most notably, the ex TMZ reporter who delivered a ‘savage burn’ to Amber’s lawyer

The trial saw tons more witnesses take to the stand to defend each side, including doctors, experts, friends, and family members – and there were a few other standouts who went viral for the things they said or did while testifying.

Ex TMZ reporter Morgan Tremaine was branded as a ‘king’ by people on the internet after he clapped back at Amber’s lawyer when she accused him of only taking the stand to seek ’15 minutes of fame.’

Morgan, who worked as TMZ’s former field assignment manager, was called by Johnny’s team to discuss a series of photos taken by the gossip site of Amber in 2016.

The pictures in question showed the actress leaving court after filing for a restraining order against Johnny, with what appeared to be a bruise on her cheek. 

According to Morgan, they were tipped off about the photo op – but he didn’t specify who gave them the tip. 

During her cross examination, Amber’s attorney Elaine Bredehoft accused Morgan of speaking out about the matter in an attempt to get attention, but he quickly shut those rumors down.

He insisted that he ‘gained nothing’ from speaking out, and fired back at the lawyer by telling her that he could ‘say the same thing’ about her taking Amber as a client.

‘You know this case is being televised, right?’ Elaine asked Morgan during her cross examination.

‘I am aware that there are cameras,’ he responded.

‘So this gets you your 15 minutes of fame, doesn’t it?’ she then suggested. 

‘I stand to gain nothing from this. I’m actually putting myself in the target of TMZ, a very litigious organization and I’m not seeking any 15 minutes here,’ he fired back.

‘But you’re welcome to speculate. I can say the same thing – by taking Amber Heard as a client – for you.’ 

The journalist’s ‘savage burn’ quickly went viral, and many social media users started vehemently supporting the former TMZ staffer.

Another viral moment came when clinical psychologist Shannon Curry took to the stand, and had to beg Amber’s lawyer to stop questioning her about muffins during a bizarre turn of events. 

The actress’ attorney Elaine tried to claim that Dr. Curry, who was hired to evaluate the stars’ relationship in 2021, was ‘so excited’ to work with the stars that she told her husband about it despite it being ‘highly confidential.’

Elaine said she could prove that Dr. Curry broke the confidentiality rules because she brought Amber some muffins that she said were courtesy of her husband when they met up in December 2021.

‘May I clarify what occurred so that we can stop talking about the muffins?’ the psychologist snapped to Elaine after she made the accusation.

‘What happened was, I was getting ready that morning, I frequently bring muffins to the office. 

‘My husband did happen to know that there was going to be a celebrity client coming in because on the morning that that occurs, which often occurs, we have to actually clear the office and move the staff to the other office.

‘So yes, on the one hand, he was aware of that. I was getting ready, I asked him to go to the bakery near our house and pick up the muffins for me because I was running late – he often has to do that because I often do run late.

‘He brought the muffins back to the house, I brought them into the office, Ms. Heard and I enjoyed the muffins together.

‘I think I made a comment to her along the lines of “my husband got these for us today,” meaning he purchased the muffins we are now enjoying them because of him.’

The internet was also entertained when Johnny’s doorman started vaping and driving his car in the middle of his testimony, which was done via video chat.

‘The REAL stars of the trial’: Johnny’s supporters brought live alpacas to the courtroom to show their support for the actor 

A very bizarre animal even made an appearance at the trial. Every day, a slew of supporters lined up outside the courthouse in the hopes of getting a glimpse of Johnny – and some even brought live alpacas with them. 

The mammal was symbolic in the case since it was used in a quote from Johnny about his relationship with Disney after Amber released her op-ed about him in 2018. 

Days after the article came out, he was dropped by the company, and the actor reportedly claimed at the time that he would not return for another Pirates movie even if Disney offered him $300 million and a million alpacas. 

So fans decided to bring the animal to court in an attempt to show their support – and many people on the web were very entertained by it.

‘The real stars of this trial… the ALPACAS,’ joked one Twitter user. 

Another said, ‘I hope that we can learn at least one thing from this trial: Don’t underestimate the power of one man and a few alpacas.’

Johnny’s lawyer was even spotted bringing a stuffed alpaca with him into the courtroom.

‘I’ll sure miss the alpacas,’ read a third tweet after the trial came to an end.

‘[The alpacas were] the best moment of the entire thing,’ agreed a different user.

Senate Judiciary Democrats wrote a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts demanding Samuel Alito recuse himself from future cases involving tax and ethics issues after the justice told Congress to stay out of the court’s business. 

‘Congress did not create the Supreme Court,’ Alito told the Wall Street Journal in an interview. ‘I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.’ 

The Senate Democrats accused the conservative justice of violating the existing ethics rules with the interview. 

Congressional Democrats advanced legislation to impose new ethics rules after a series of reports of justices accepting lavish vacations and other perks that present potential conflicts of interest. 

Dick Durbin, chair of the Judiciary Committee, wrote that Alito had violated the court’s Statement on Ethics and Principals by ‘by opining on the constitutionality of legislation under consideration by the U.S. Senate’ Alito likely violated a Statement of Ethics the court released in April by ‘creating an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public.’

The Democrats also noted that one of the Wall Street Journal interviewers, David Rivkin, is representing the plaintiffs in a tax case to be heard next term before the Supreme Court – Moore v. United States.   

‘Mr. Rivkin’s access to Justice Alito and efforts to help Justice Alito air his personal grievances could cast doubt on Justice Alito’s ability to fairly discharge his duties in a case in which Mr. Rivkin represents one of the parties,’ Durbin said, arguing Alito should not decide tax cases. 

But Roberts does not have the authority to order Alito to recuse under current rules – Alito can only choose to recuse himself. 

The Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill last month that would force the Supreme Court to adopt a stronger ethics policy. 

Last month Alito went to war with ProPublica after the publication released a report revealing the justice enjoyed a luxury fishing expedition to Alaska, likely worth tens of thousands of dollars, courtesy of a Republican megadonor. 

Alito did not recuse himself from cases involving the billionaire’s companies on multiple occasions when they later came before the court.

Rather than respond to investigative news site ProPublica when its reporters asked him for comment, Alito chose to go on the attack.

On Tuesday evening, he slammed the not-yet-published report as ‘misleading’ with his own lawyerly account of the trip, reflecting what appears to be growing anger among justices that their integrity is being questioned.

‘ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report,’ he wrote in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal.

‘Neither charge is valid.’

Meanwhile, a string of revelations about ties between Justice Clarence Thomas and a Texas billionaire has coincided with a steep drop in public confidence in the nation’s top court.

Hours after Alito’s rebuttal had posted on Tuesday evening, ProPublica published its scoop,

It includes a photograph of a beaming Alito holding a monster King Salmon beside billionaire Singer during their July 2008 trip.

The hedge fund manager flew the justice to Alaska on a private jet – a trip that could have cost as much as $100,000 if Alito had paid for it himself, the report says.

He stayed at at a commercial fishing lodge owned by another prominent businessman. Three years earlier that same figure hosted Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016.

ProPublica said its reporting of Alito and Scalia’s travel included examination of planning emails, Alaska fishing licenses, and interviews with dozens of people including private jet pilots, fishing guides, former high-level employees of both Singer and the lodge owner, and other guests on the trips.

And it said Alito did not report the trip on his annual disclosure.

During the trip, ProPublica said the group flew on one of the lodge’s planes to a waterfall in Katmai National Park. That evening they dined on Alaskan king crab legs or Kobe filet.

At the final dinner, a guest bragged that they were drinking $1000 bottles of wine, according to a guide.

In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund was involved in multiple legal wrangles including at least 10 that ended up at the Supreme Court.

In 2014, he won a decade-long battle with Argentina when the court voted 7-1 in his favor, winning $2.4 billion in the process. Scalia did not remove himself from the case, voting with majority.

In his pre-emptive response, Alito insisted he had not duty to recuse himself.

‘My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups,’ he wrote.

‘On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the court.’

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republican efforts to radically reshape how elections are conducted across the country by giving state legislatures almost unchecked powers to redraw congressional maps and set electoral rules.

The justices voted 6-3 to uphold a decision made by North Carolina’s top court, saying it had not overstepped its authority in striking down a new map of congressional districts as overly partisan.

Republican lawmakers essentially asked the nation’s highest court to allow state legislatures ultimate authority, unchecked by state courts, in federal elections.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: ‘State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause.’ 

‘But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review.’

A different ruling could have had a major impact on the 2024 elections.

And it comes at a time when the role of partisan lawmakers in state elections is under intense scrutiny because of the way former President Donald Trump and his allies attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 and influence the 2022 midterms. 

The White House welcomed the decision.

‘We’re pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the extreme legal theory presented in this case, which would have interfered with state governments, which would have opened the door for politicians to undermine the will of the people and would have threatened the freedom of all Americans to have their voices heard at the ballot box,’ said Olivia Dalton, principal deputy press secretary.

The case before the Supreme Court relied on the ‘independent legislature theory. It is based on a hardline reading of the Constitution’s Clause, which states: ‘The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.’

Adherents argue that means that courts, governors or independent commissions cannot interfere in a legislature’s authority over elections, even if lawmakers gerrymander election maps or violate protections enshrined in state constitutions. 

Four of the Supreme Court’s justices have issued opinions suggesting some support for the controversial theory.

In North Carolina, the state supreme court struck down Republicans’ proposed map in February last year.

Of 14 Congressional districts, the GOP would have been in control of all but three. 

The Tar Heel state’s highest court voted 4-3 along party lines that the map was ‘unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt’ in its partisan advantage.

‘Achieving partisan advantage incommensurate with a political party’s level of statewide voter support is neither a compelling nor a legitimate governmental interest,’ the court ruled.

Instead, the midterm elections were conducted with a court-drawn map, designed to split support evenly.

Republican leaders in the legislature made their case to justices in December, arguing that the state supreme court had overstepped its authority. 

At the time, Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, told the Associated Press that ‘this case could profoundly alter the balance of power in states and prevent state courts and agencies from providing protections for people’s right to vote.’

‘There’s a wide range of ways the court could rule on this. Taken to its extreme, it would be a radical reworking of our system of running elections,’ he said. 

Former President Barack Obama also welcomed the decision.

‘This ruling rejects the far-right theory that threatened to undermine our democracy, and makes clear that courts can continue defending voters’ rights — in North Carolina and in every state,’ he tweeted.

Supreme Court says Louisiana’s voting maps must be redrawn to add ANOTHER district where majority of residents are black: State was accused of violating election laws by diluting African-American vote

• The ruling was handed down with no dissenting opinions
• It follows a similar decision against the state of Alabama 
• Lower courts had voiced concerns that Black voting power had been illegally diluted

By James Franey, Senior U.S. Political Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Published: 11:34 EDT, 26 June 2023 | Updated: 13:22 EDT, 26 June 2023

Supreme Court will hear Republicans’ bid to increase state authority over election laws in case with massive implications for 2024

• The case, Moore v. Harper, deals with North Carolina’s Congressional map
• Multiple state courts have struck down the Republican legislature’s redistricting proposal, which would give their party control over 11 of 14 House seats
• The GOP is arguing that striking down the map is a violation of a Constitutional provision that gives legislatures unilateral authority over state election laws 
• It’s a legal theory known as Independent State Legislature Doctrine
• The Supreme Court has struck down arguments using the theory in the past
• It has the potential to boost the power of Republican-led legislatures in battleground states like Michigan ahead of the next presidential race

By Elizabeth Elkind, Politics Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Published: 16:31 EDT, 30 June 2022 | Updated: 17:23 EDT, 30 June 2022

Donald Trump was placed under arrest by U.S. Marshals after entering federal court with his loyal aide Walt Nauta ahead of his historic appearance in front of a judge over the scheme to keep classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. 

The former president’s motorcade left Trump National Doral Miami and took off on the journey downtown where hundreds of MAGA supporters and protesters were there to greet him. 

A short time later the motorcade went underneath the court, where Trump was processed and fingerprinted. The booking procedure wrapped up shortly before 2:30 p.m. 

Shortly before 3 p.m. the hearing started in front of magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, where the 37 federal charges will then be read to him. 

Special Counsel Jack Smith was seated in the front row of the courtroom, while the former president was seated with his lawyers.  

During the drive Trump shared his fury with a Truth Social post saying: ‘ON MY WAY TO COURTHOUSE. WITCH HUNT!!! MAGA.’ 

He gave a brief wave to a group of supporters lined up outside his golf course before the stream of black SUVs and cop cars began their procession along empty highways.

Nauta, the loyal aide who prosecutors say helped Trump move documents around Mar-a-Lago, was in the motorcade with him awaiting his own appearance in front of the judge. 

The 76-year-old is facing 37 federal charges related to his handling of classified documents that included U.S. nuclear secrets and intelligence on foreign countries.

The allegations were revealed in the bombshell federal indictment unsealed on Friday – and included photos of boxes of sensitive files scattered around Mar-a-Lago. 

His supporters and protesters started swarming the courthouse on Tuesday morning, waiting for his showdown with a judge.

Trump brought a number of loyal aides to Miami with him including Jason Miller, Boris Epshteyn and Margo Martin. 

Outside the courthouse, Trump lawyer Alina Habba blasted the prosecution – as well as Trump probes underway in other jurisdictions. ‘Destruction of the longstanding American principles that have set this country part for so long.

In recent years, we have seen the rise of politically motivated prosecutors who don’t care for impartiality don’t care for due process for equal protection of laws,’ she said.

‘They have been quietly, but aggressively cultivating a two-tiered system of justice. From the Russia hoax to the attorney generals to the corrupt Das in Georgia and New York. And now this. The people in charge of this country do not love America. They hate Donald Trump.’

Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy called on all presidential candidates to vow they would pardon Trump during a press conference outside.

He said that he would quash any conviction against the former president for mishandling classified documents, obstructing justice and making false statements 

Trump, meanwhile, took to his Truth Social platform to rail against Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the Department of Justice’s case.

‘This is the Thug, over turned consistently and unanimously in big cases, that Biden and his CORRUPT Injustice Department stuck on me. He’s a Radical Right Lunatic and Trump Hater, as are all his friends and family, who probably “planted” information in the “boxes” given to them. They taint everything that they touch, including our Country, which is rapidly going to HELL!,’ he complained.

There were only a handful of people on hand early in the morning but officials expected that number to increase as the time of Trump’s arrival got closer. 

One of the early arrivals was a group wearing ‘Blacks for Trump’ t-shirts. 

Another man, wearing the American flag, carried a stick with a pig’s head through it.

Many of Trump’s supporters were coordinating their movements on Twitter.

Kari Lake, the failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate who is a huge supporter of the former president, tweeted that she will be joining protesters Tuesday.

Reporters lined up to get one of the 300 seats in the overflow room inside the courthouse. Only 20 journalists and members of the public will be let inside the actual courtroom where Trump will be arraigned.

Meanwhile, Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Monday found that 81 percent of Republicans thought the charges against Trump were politically motivated.

The poll also found that Trump still leads his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination by a wide margin. 

About 43 percent of Republicans said Trump was their preferred candidate, compared to 22 per cent who picked Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Trump’s closest rival.

Supreme Court in shock decision as justices vote 5-4 to strike down Republican-drawn Alabama congressional districts because they discriminated against black voters

By Morgan Phillips, Politics Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Published: 14:03 EDT, 8 June 2023 | Updated: 14:03 EDT, 8 June 2023

Advertisement

Chemicals giant Johnson Matthey embroiled in bitter legal battle against US buyer of its former health business

By Luke Barr, Financial Mail On Sunday

Updated: 16:52 EDT, 3 June 2023

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

POPULAR MONEY SECTIONS
Take me to…

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said Sunday that attempts by the Supreme Court to block gun control could trigger a ‘popular revolt.’

He made his comments as President Joe Biden accused Republicans of caring more about gunmakers than their constituents as he again called on Congress to pass gun control legislation.

Democrats stepped up their arguments that a majority of Americans back tougher firearm regulation on the day that Buffalo, New York, was marking the anniversary of a racist gun attack that killed 10 people.

‘If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy,’ said Murphy, of Connecticut.

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that a federal law preventing the sale of guns to 18- to 20-year-olds was unconstitutional. 

Any further action could make it all the way to the Supreme Court, which has lost the confidence of a swath of Americans and faces fresh ethics allegations against justices.

‘A court that’s already pretty illegitimate, is going to be in full crisis mode,’ Murphy added on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’

He is an outspoken advocate of gun control and his words may be seen as a threat. 

Meanwhile, Biden marked the anniversary of the Buffalo mass shooting with an impassioned call to ban assault weapons and require gun owners to securely their firearms.

‘The majority of Americans – even the majority of gun owners – want Congress to take some commonsense action to reduce gun violence,’ he wrote in an op-ed published by USA Today.

‘But too many congressional Republicans are doing the bidding of gun manufacturers instead of their constituents.’

The city of Buffalo is marking the attack with a moment of silence to remember the 10 people killed when a gunman targeted black people at a supermarket.

It will be followed by bells tolling. 

‘The racially motivated mass shooting shook our community to its core. It was the day the unthinkable happened,’ Mayor Byron Brown said in announcing plans for the commemoration.

Biden pointed out the murders were followed 10 days later by an attack on a school in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two teachers were shot dead.

‘Jill and I visited both communities, spending hours with hundreds of family members who lost pieces of their soul and whose lives will never be the same,’ he wrote. 

‘They had one message for all of us: Do something. For God’s sake, do something.’

In their aftermath, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It strengthens firearms background checks for young people and expands the use of red flag laws.

But more is needed, wrote Biden, pointing out that the toll since Buffalo last year included 650 mass shootings and more than 40,000 deaths due to gun violence.

‘Congress must act, including by banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring gun owners to securely store their firearms, requiring background checks for all gun sales, and repealing gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability,’ he wrote. 

‘We also need more governors and state legislators to take these steps.’

The White House sent out a fact sheet describing actions taken by the Biden administration.

They include enhanced background checks, particularly for people under the age of 21; adding dating relationship status in domestic abuse cases to prevent guns falling into the hands of people with a history of abuse; and increased prosecutions over firearms trafficking and purchases of weapons for people banned from buying a gun.