(SAO GONCALO DO AMARANTE, Brazil) — Forty people were injured after an Air Europa flight from Spain to Uruguay experienced strong turbulence and was diverted to Brazil, officials said.
Flight UX045 experienced “heavy” turbulence early Monday morning and safely landed at Natal International Airport in São Gonçalo do Amarante, the airline said. The plane requested an emergency landing around 2:32 a.m. local time, according to the airport.
Thirty people received medical care at the airport, while 10 had to be transported to the hospital for further exams, the airport confirmed to ABC News Monday night.
Air Europa said in an earlier statement that seven people suffered injuries of “varying degrees,” and there was an “undetermined number of people with minor contusions.”
“Due to the nature of the turbulence and for safety reasons, it was decided to divert the flight to Natal International Airport in Brazil,” the airline said.
The flight had departed Madrid-Barajas and was en route to Carrasco International Airport in Montevideo, Uruguay, when the incident occurred, according to the airline. Natal was the closest airport to address the passengers’ medical needs, the airline said.
Passenger videos showed damage to the cabin of the plane and injured passengers in neck braces lying on their backs in the aisle. In one video, a man could be seen dangling from an overhead compartment, though it is unclear how he ended up there.
The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner was carrying 325 passengers at the time.
The passengers were being moved to Recife and a plane was scheduled to depart Madrid Monday afternoon to pick them up and continue their trip to Montevideo, Air Europa said.
ABC News’ Aicha El Hammar Castano contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — In a historic ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court said former President Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for “official” acts taken as president, but not for any “unofficial” acts.
The 6-3 decision could have major implications for the various criminal cases pending against Trump — especially special counsel Jack Smith’s federal case, for which Trump faces four felony counts for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
What constitutes an “official” versus an “unofficial” act by the president is not precisely defined in the opinion, and Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged it could raise “difficult questions.”
“Certain allegations — such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General — are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “Other allegations — such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public — present more difficult questions.”
In addition to the core presidential duties laid out in the Constitution, conduct within the “outer perimeter” of official functions would be deemed immune as long as it is “not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”
It would be up to the lower courts to determine whether the conduct in question is considered official or unofficial.
“[Official acts are] something that you would expect the president to do — kind of a core presidential duty, like acting as Commander-in-Chief of the military,” said Chris Timmons, a former prosecutor and ABC News legal contributor. “If the president of the United States sent troops to Lebanon, for example, he couldn’t be prosecuted for murder.”
Though the ruling has been largely deemed a win for Trump, it’s far from a get-out-of-jail-free card, legal experts told ABC News — particularly when it comes to prosecution for actions he took not as the president but as a candidate.
When it comes to allegations that Trump enlisted “fake electors” to overturn the 2020 election in his favor, for example, it would likely be difficult to argue that was done in his official capacity as president.
“The interaction with fake electors is not something a president does as part of his official duties — it is something a candidate does as part of their campaign,” Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. “That allows the court to say, I think rightly in this case, that Trump’s interaction with the fake electors is really on the unofficial side, rather than official.”
Even so, punting the decision to the lower courts is almost certain to throw obstacles in the way of the pending litigation against Trump, slowing them down even further ahead of the election.
“The court basically said that as long as Trump or any president claims that what he was doing was acting officially, then his actions are presumptively constitutional, and it’s up to the prosecutor to find evidence to overcome that presumption, and that is not going to be easy,” Gerhardt said.
Some legal experts expect Smith may reevaluate the federal case against Trump, possibly jettisoning some elements that could prove shakier due to the Supreme Court ruling.
“One option is to try to streamline the case considerably to only those acts that either Trump conceded were unofficial, or those acts plus some that Jack Smith thinks he has the best chance of persuading the courts are unofficial, and then proceed on that basis in the interest of efficiency,” Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor and Cardozo Law professor, told ABC News. “Or does he want to be more aggressive and try to keep more of the allegations in the case, which might be more risky for him in terms of ultimately prevailing?”
(ST GEORGE’S, Grenada) — Warmer-than-usual ocean temperatures have allowed for the earliest-ever Category 4 hurricane on record to barrel through the Atlantic Basin, records show.
Hurricane Beryl was a Category 4 storm Monday morning as it approached the Caribbean islands of St. Vincent, Grenadines, Grenada, and Carriacou and Petite Martinique islands – the first-ever hurricane recorded during the month of June.
Sea surface temperatures are at record highs, with temperatures in the Atlantic, where hurricanes form, measuring two or three degrees Celsius higher than normal in the Caribbean Sea, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The current temperatures are typical for September, not for the start of July.
On average, the first hurricane of the Atlantic season tends to form during early to mid-August. The first Category 3 generally doesn’t usually occur until Sept. 1, records show.
The previous record for the earliest Category 4 was held by Hurricane Dennis on July 7, 2005. Considering how warm water temperatures are right now, Hurricane Beryl is the type of outlier that meteorologists expected to see this season, Brian McNoldy, a tropical meteorology researcher at the University of Miami, told ABC News.
Forecasts show another tropical disturbance could be close behind Beryl and could target many of the same parts of the Caribbean.
Hurricane strength is rated according to the Saffir-Simpson Scale, with Category 1 storms exhibiting maximum sustained winds of 74 to 95 MPH. A Category 5 storm has maximum sustained winds of 157 MPH or higher. As storms increase in strength, some experts are debating whether to add a Category 6 intensity level to the scale.
Oceans are staying warmer for longer periods, potentially extending the hurricane season. Hurricanes can now form earlier in the spring and later in the autumn, increasing the window of time during which these storms can occur and leading some experts to recommend changes to the Atlantic hurricane season, which officially runs from June 1 to Nov. 30.
Global sea surface temperatures across a majority of the world’s oceans remain at unprecedented levels as marine heatwaves persist around the globe, even with El Niño conditions winding down, according to Copernicus’ ERA5 data record, released last month.
The average daily sea surface temperature for the month of May hit a new all-time high of 69.67 degrees Fahrenheit, setting a monthly new record for the 14th month in a row. The average sea surface temperature for June has not yet been released, but the record-high trend is expected to continue.
The tropical Atlantic has been measuring record-breaking high temperatures for more than a year, McNoldy said.
Since El Niño ended, meteorologists have anticipated an active season because of more heat and less wind shear in the months following El Niño, so even without factoring in greenhouse gas emissions, 2024 would be a busy hurricane season. However, climate scientists agree that human emissions have amplified the behavior of hurricanes.
“We’ve left El Niño, and we’re heading into La Niña, which, in general, that actually helps to enhance Atlantic hurricane activity,” McNoldy said.
Anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change has led to significant warming of the oceans, which provide the energy hurricanes need to form and intensify. Over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been absorbed by the oceans, creating conditions that can rapidly turn tropical storms into powerful hurricanes. This has resulted in more storms reaching Category 4 or 5 intensities, recent studies have shown.
Hurricanes are now intensifying more quickly, in days or sometimes mere hours, research shows. Tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin may now be more than twice as likely to strengthen from a weak hurricane or tropical storm into a major hurricane in just 24 hours due to climate change and warming waters, according to a paper published in October in Scientific Reports.
Hurricane Beryl had undergone rapid intensification to strengthen into a Category 4 major hurricane on Sunday morning. The storm system then weakened briefly before returning to Category 4 strength on Monday morning. While anthropogenic climate change is not the sole factor for the abrupt jump in marine temperatures in the past year, it is a key ingredient.
“Certainly, climate change is playing a role,” McNoldy said.
Climate change is also impacting the amount of moisture that storm systems can hold and is increasing the frequency of major hurricanes, meaning Category 3 and above, scientists say. The severity of the storm surge that accompanies major storms, as well as the extent of global sea level rise have also been exacerbated by rising temperatures, scientists say,
ABC News’ Kenton Gewecke and Matthew Glasser contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump aimed to secure such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4, but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 8:21 PM ‘There are no kings in America’: Biden reacts to SCOTUS ruling on immunity
President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court’s historic decision on presidential immunity Monday, saying the ruling “fundamentally changed” the limits to America’s highest office.
“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America,” Biden said.
“Each of us is equal before the law,” he continued. “No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.”
“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden said.
President Joe Biden speaks in the Cross Hall of the White House, July 1, 2024, in Washington. Addressing the charges Trump faces for actions taken to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Biden said, “The public has a right to know the answer about what happened on Jan. 6 before they are asked to vote again this year.”
Ahead of the November election, Biden said the American people have to decide if they want to “entrust” the presidency once again to Donald Trump, “now knowing he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it.”
President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday, which said former President Donald Trump is entitled to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken to overturn results of the 2020 election.
SCOTUS’ 6-3 decision made it unlikely the former president would be tried before the November 2024 election.
“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden said.
“This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden continued, warning, “The only limits will be self-imposed posed by the president alone.”
Biden delivered his remarks from the White House’s Cross Hall Monday.
Jul 01, 6:17 PM Biden set to deliver remarks on SCOTUS ruling
President Joe Biden will deliver remarks on the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling this evening from the White House at 7:45 p.m. ET.
Biden is returning to the White House from Camp David, where his family, including first lady Jill Biden, son Hunter Biden and their grandchildren have been for a pre-scheduled gathering.
Jul 01, 4:05 PM Supreme Court’s liberal justices warn of ‘law-free zone’
While both the conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices agreed its ruling has far-reaching implications for the future of the presidency, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the impact would be chilling.
“Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark,” she wrote. “The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding,” she said in her dissent.
Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson described the majority’s threshold for deciding immunity on a case-by-case basis as complicated and convoluted. The model they laid out, she said, could leave presidents feeling more emboldened to act unlawfully.
“Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when — if ever — a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act ‘manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority, they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike,” she wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against the liberal dissents, saying they “strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.”
“Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. Accounting for that reality — and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives.”
-ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:39 PM Seal Team 6 hypothetical assassination referenced in dissent
In their dissents, both justices Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
When the president “uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor said in her dissent. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said on ABC News Live Monday that she agreed with the dissenting opinion that ordering the hypothetical assassination could be considered immune from criminal prosecution.
“In terms of the application of this immunity to very extreme scenarios like ordering an assassination, I’m not sure the majority successfully explains why this rule would not shield that kind of conduct if it’s engaged in an official capacity, even if it’s wildly wrong and dangerous and destructive,” she said. “If that conduct is done in official capacity, I think the dissent is right on this opinion’s own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case.”
The SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case in April.
Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.
“I’m going to give you a chance to say … if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him — is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked during oral arguments.
“It would depend on the hypothetical,” Sauer answered. “We could see that could well be an official act.”
-ABC News’ Meredith Deliso and Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:34 PM White House spokesman reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, released a statement about the ruling stating, “As President Biden has said, nobody is above the law.”
“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works. We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down,” Sams added.
-ABC News’ Selina Wang
Jul 01, 3:24 PM Election interference judge does not mention Supreme Court decision during hearing
Washington, D.C., District Judge Tanya Chutkan did not mention or make any remarks about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling during her first public hearing on Monday since the Supreme Court court sent Trump’s Jan 6 case back to her.
At one point during a status hearing for a Jan 6. defendant, when Judge Chutkan was asked about a trial date, she said “my calendar is…” as she made a face and laughed.
The heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee both released statements following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
RNC chair Michael Whatley said “today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and a reminder that the Constitution outweighs the left’s weaponization of the judicial system against President Trump and his allies.”
DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, however, argued the “ruling only underscores the stakes of this election,” in light of Trump’s repeated threats against his opponents.
“The only thing standing between Donald Trump and his threats to our democracy is President Biden — and the American people will stand once again on the side of democracy this November,” he said.
Jul 01, 12:33 PM Trump argues decision ‘should end all’ cases against him
Trump spoke about the ruling in another post on his social media platform arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision “should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me.”
The former president specifically cited his Manhattan hush-money case, in which Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. He is slated to be sentenced this month in the hush-money case.
Trump also cited the New York attorney general civil case against his businesses’ fraudulent practices and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
Jul 01, 12:11 PM Barrett disagrees with ruling’s stance on evidence
Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority on the presidential immunity case, she dissented on a section of the ruling that limits what evidence can be used against a president at trial.
Barrett brought up a hypothetical situation of a bribery case against a president, arguing while there are clear federal laws that prohibit the commander-in-chief from accepting bribes, excluding evidence would “hamstring the prosecution.”
“To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability,” she wrote in her concurring opinion.
“I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury … But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis,” Barrett added.
-ABC News’ Katherine Faulders
Jul 01, 11:47 AM Trump fundraises off immunity ruling
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign sent out an email fundraising off the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
“BREAKING FROM TRUMP: Supreme Court gives TOTAL IMMUNITY for official acts!” Trump campaign’s fundraising email said.
“Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted – BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY &; OUR CONSTITUTION!” the fundraising email continues, calling the case a “witch hunt” and saying it “should’ve never happened.”
Jul 01, 11:34 AM Jackson argues ruling ‘breaks new and dangerous ground’
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling arguing it “breaks new and dangerous ground.”
“So, how does this new Presidential accountability model work? An initial problem is the lack of clarity regarding what this new model entails,” she wrote.
Jackson added that the ruling “unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress.”
Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents. Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:16 AM ‘It makes a mockery of the principle … that no man is above the law,’ Sotomayor says in dissent
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the conservative justices’ ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity case.
Sotomayor contended in her dissent that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
She argued the conservative justices invented “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.”
“That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force,” she added.
Sotomayor also said the ruling opens up the possibility that when a president uses their official powers in any way, they will be “insulated from criminal prosecution.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:03 AM Special counsel Jack Smith declines to comment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson told ABC News.
The court’s ruling will affect whether former President Donald Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Jul 01, 10:48 AM Trump reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Former President Donald Trump released a statement about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in a post on his social media platform.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Monday morning.
Jul 01, 10:44 AM Biden campaign reacts to SCOTUS ruling
A senior Biden campaign advisor released a statement about the court’s ruling on immunity, stating, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The campaign argued that Trump “thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”
Jul 01, 10:36 AM Supreme Court rules president has no immunity for unofficial acts
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the immunity case against former President Donald Trump stating, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.
The ruling, in which all of the liberal justices dissented,” added, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
Jul 01, 9:41 AM ‘It’s a BIG decision,’ Trump says
With the Supreme Court poised to rule in Trump’s presidential immunity case, former President Donald Trump is continuing to push his defense, saying Monday’s decision with be a “big” and “important” one.
“It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!” Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday.
Jul 01, 9:35 AM View from Trump’s legal world ahead of today’s ruling
While Trump’s team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why’s that?
Trump’s lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it’s not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case’s future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump’s lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump’s lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Jul 01, 9:19 AM ‘Disturbing’: What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
Jul 01, 6:41 AM Five key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Marshals Service rescued and located 200 missing or endangered children over a six-week period, the agency announced on Monday.
“Operation We Will Find You 2” focused on several hot spot cities such as Phoenix, Arizona, and Miami, Florida, where there were kids missing, it said.
“Whenever a child is missing, whether we cannot explain how they went missing, whether we think it was a family abduction, or whether it’s a runaway, they are at risk of being in danger and at risk of being trafficked, at risk of being hurt, we need to take it very, very seriously,” U.S. Marshals Service Director Ronald Davis told reporters on Monday.
The Marshals worked with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) to help find and locate the children it was tasked with finding.
The number of children rescued is still “just scratching the surface,” Davis said.
With technical assistance from NCMEC, 123 children were removed from dangerous situations, and 77 were found in safe locations, the agency said.
“Our kids are our most precious asset,” he said. “We need to make sure that all of them have an opportunity to grow in a safe environment. I think that is our obligation.”
Davis said the Marshals Service has run the operation six times previous to this one and, so far, it’s located 546 children in 2024, which is a higher number than last year at this time, but lower than the nearly 950 children recovered in 2021.
Michelle DeLaune, the president of NCMEC, said his organization is “incredibly grateful” for the work of the Marshals Service in locating the missing children.
The Phoenix area saw the most children rescued over the six-week period, officials said.
(NEW YORK) — The stock market defied expectations with a strong performance over the first half of 2024. But the success poses a key question for investors: Is there room for stocks to go even higher?
The S&P 500 climbed nearly 15% over the first six months of the year. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed about 4% over that period, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq soared roughly 18%.
Analysts who spoke to ABC News attributed the strong gains to enthusiasm about artificial intelligence as well as resilient economic growth and expectations that interest rates would ease.
But, experts predicted, the stock market will likely struggle to sustain its breakneck growth over the remainder of the year as investors turn away from increasingly high prices and weather uncertainty centered on the economic outlook and the November election.
“It has been a very impressive start to the year,” Adam Turnquist, chief technical strategist at LPL Financial, told ABC news. “But as we look toward the second half, on a short term basis, we think the market is overbought.”
Despite straining under the weight of the highest interest rates in two decades, the U.S. economy has sustained solid growth. Meanwhile, U.S job gains have remained robust, exceeding expectations and driving significant wage increases.
Progress, however, in the fight against inflation has largely stalled. Even so, the Fed has indicated that an additional rate increase is unlikely, instead forecasting one rate cut by the end of 2024.
“The markets have welcomed the fact that we’re likely to see rate cuts,” Turnquist said.
Those wider economic trends have coincided with a burst of investor appetite for tech firms leading the adoption of AI. Major stock indexes drew a bump from investors optimistic about the potential benefits of products like ChatGPT.
Those gains were concentrated primarily in a handful of tech giants, known as the magnificent seven: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla and Nvidia. Even within that group, the gains were enjoyed primarily by a select few.
The stock price of Nvidia — the maker of many computer chips driving AI advances — has climbed nearly 150% since the outset of 2024. Microsoft, which owns a major stake in ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, has seen its shares soar more than 20% this year.
“The AI effect has helped market sentiment and deservedly so,” Mike Loukas, CEO of TrueMark Investments, told ABC News. “But a handful of concentrated stocks seem to carry the market at any given time.”
In light of the gangbusters performance at the outset of this year, experts warned that the stock market would likely struggle to sustain the returns. At a basic level, the rise in stock prices that stretches back to last year will eventually reach a point where traders become reluctant to pour in funds at an elevated price tag, the analysts said.
“There needs to be a reset button from these overbought conditions,” Turnquist said.
Even more, the positive trends in the economy face a number of threats. Most notably, the ongoing combination of high interest rates and stubborn inflation could weigh on corporate profits and wear investor patience thin.
“The whole dance — rate cuts or no rate cuts; inflation or no inflation — I think that continues,” Loukas said. “We’re still pretty sensitive as a whole to macroeconomic factors.”
Such economic uncertainty is compounded by a wide range of possible outcomes in the November election, Loukas added.
“The election is going to be a wild variable,” Loukas said. “There’s a lot of uncertainty in what’s happening and the market is still trying to price that in.”
Loukas forecasted growth in the stock market over the remainder of 2024, but he said the pace would fall short of the surge experienced over the first half.
Turnquist, of LPL Financial, echoed that view. The stock market could rise slightly by the end of the year, he said, but companies will weather a more challenging environment.
“There’s still a risk that the battle isn’t over with the Fed,” he added.
Still, Turquist noted, the outlook for the market beyond this year remains favorable. “We’re still in a long-term uptrend,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon surrendered on Monday to law enforcement to begin his four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress.
He entered the Federal Correctional Institute Danbury, in Danbury, Connecticut, shortly before noon to begin serving his sentence.
The Supreme Court had on Friday denied Bannon’s request to remain out of prison during the appeals process after he filed an emergency appeal on Friday with the high court.
Bannon was sentenced to four months in October 2022 after he was found guilty of defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Speaking to supporters before he entered the Danbury facility, Bannon said he was proud to begin his sentence.
“I am proud to go to prison,” Bannon said. “If this is what it takes the stand up to tyranny, if this way it takes the stand up to the Garland corrupt criminal DOJ, if this is what it takes to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, if this is what it takes to stand up to Joe Biden, I’m proud to do it. “
Bannon, who was joined by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican Senate candidate Royce White, former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, and a priest, spoke as supporters and counter protesters shouted over each other.
Asked by ABC News if he has any regrets about his conduct, Bannon stood by his actions.
“I have not only no regrets,” Bannon said, “I’m actually proud of what I did, I’d feel terrible if I didn’t do it. I don’t mind going to prison today.”
Bannon told supporters that he will continue to support former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign from prison, adding that his War Room podcast will be “bigger and better than ever.”
“You don’t need my voice. We’re a populist movement,” Bannon said.
“Victory or death,” Bannon concluded. “It’s time for me to surrender up at Danbury.”
A U.S. district judge had ordered Bannon, 70, to report to prison by July 1 to begin serving his sentence.
Bannon is the second Trump adviser to be convicted and sent to prison for refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 panel, after former Trump adviser Peter Navarro reported to prison in March.
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Laura Romero and Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — Five people, including two children, were killed Sunday in a plane crash in upstate New York, police said.
The victims were family members from Georgia. They were headed back to Atlanta after a trip to Cooperstown, New York, for a baseball tournament, police said.
The victims were Roger Beggs, 76; Laura VanEpps, 43; Ryan VanEpps, 42; James R. VanEpps, 12; and Harrison VanEpps, 10, according to police.
On Sunday at approximately 2 p.m., state police said authorities were dispatched for a possible plane crash near Lake Cecil Road in Masonville, New York.
Officials said the downed plane — a single-engine aircraft called the Piper Malibu Mirage — was discovered after a multi-agency search of the area using drones, ATVs and helicopters.
The plane initially departed from Alfred S. Nader Regional Airport in Oneonta, New York, and was traveling to West Virginia to refuel with its ultimate destination being Cobb County International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia, police said.
The cause of the crash has not yet been determined.
The New York State Police Bureau of Criminal of Investigation, Collision Reconstruction Unit, and Forensic Identification Unit are working in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Transportation Board (NTSB) on the investigation.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump aimed to secure such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4, but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 3:39 PM Seal Team 6 hypothetical assassination referenced in dissent
In their dissents, both justices Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
When the president “uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor said in her dissent. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said on ABC News Live Monday that she agreed with the dissenting opinion that ordering the hypothetical assassination could be considered immune from criminal prosecution.
“In terms of the application of this immunity to very extreme scenarios like ordering an assassination, I’m not sure the majority successfully explains why this rule would not shield that kind of conduct if it’s engaged in an official capacity, even if it’s wildly wrong and dangerous and destructive,” she said. “If that conduct is done in official capacity, I think the dissent is right on this opinion’s own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case.”
The SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case in April.
Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.
“I’m going to give you a chance to say … if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him — is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked during oral arguments.
“It would depend on the hypothetical,” Sauer answered. “We could see that could well be an official act.”
-ABC News’ Meredith Deliso and Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:34 PM White House spokesman reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, released a statement about the ruling stating, “As President Biden has said, nobody is above the law.”
“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works. We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down,” Sams added.
-ABC News’ Selina Wang
Jul 01, 3:24 PM Election interference judge does not mention Supreme Court decision during hearing
Washington, D.C., District Judge Tanya Chutkan did not mention or make any remarks about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling during her first public hearing on Monday since the Supreme Court court sent Trump’s Jan 6 case back to her.
At one point during a status hearing for a Jan 6. defendant, when Judge Chutkan was asked about a trial date, she said “my calendar is…” as she made a face and laughed.
The heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee both released statements following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
RNC chair Michael Whatley said “today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and a reminder that the Constitution outweighs the left’s weaponization of the judicial system against President Trump and his allies.”
DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, however, argued the “ruling only underscores the stakes of this election,” in light of Trump’s repeated threats against his opponents.
“The only thing standing between Donald Trump and his threats to our democracy is President Biden — and the American people will stand once again on the side of democracy this November,” he said.
Jul 01, 12:33 PM Trump argues decision ‘should end all’ cases against him
Trump spoke about the ruling in another post on his social media platform arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision “should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me.”
The former president specifically cited his Manhattan hush-money case, in which Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. He is slated to be sentenced this month in the hush-money case.
Trump also cited the New York attorney general civil case against his businesses’ fraudulent practices and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
Jul 01, 12:11 PM Barrett disagrees with ruling’s stance on evidence
Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority on the presidential immunity case, she dissented on a section of the ruling that limits what evidence can be used against a president at trial.
Barrett brought up a hypothetical situation of a bribery case against a president, arguing while there are clear federal laws that prohibit the commander-in-chief from accepting bribes, excluding evidence would “hamstring the prosecution.”
“To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability,” she wrote in her concurring opinion.
“I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury … But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis,” Barrett added.
-ABC News’ Katherine Faulders
Jul 01, 11:47 AM Trump fundraises off immunity ruling
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign sent out an email fundraising off the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
“BREAKING FROM TRUMP: Supreme Court gives TOTAL IMMUNITY for official acts!” Trump campaign’s fundraising email said.
“Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted – BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY &; OUR CONSTITUTION!” the fundraising email continues, calling the case a “witch hunt” and saying it “should’ve never happened.”
Jul 01, 11:34 AM Jackson argues ruling ‘breaks new and dangerous ground’
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling arguing it “breaks new and dangerous ground.”
“So, how does this new Presidential accountability model work? An initial problem is the lack of clarity regarding what this new model entails,” she wrote.
Jackson added that the ruling “unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress.”
Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents. Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:16 AM ‘It makes a mockery of the principle … that no man is above the law,’ Sotomayor says in dissent
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the conservative justices’ ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity case.
Sotomayor contended in her dissent that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
She argued the conservative justices invented “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.”
“That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force,” she added.
Sotomayor also said the ruling opens up the possibility that when a president uses their official powers in any way, they will be “insulated from criminal prosecution.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:03 AM Special counsel Jack Smith declines to comment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson told ABC News.
The court’s ruling will affect whether former President Donald Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Jul 01, 10:48 AM Trump reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Former President Donald Trump released a statement about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in a post on his social media platform.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Monday morning.
Jul 01, 10:44 AM Biden campaign reacts to SCOTUS ruling
A senior Biden campaign advisor released a statement about the court’s ruling on immunity, stating, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The campaign argued that Trump “thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”
Jul 01, 10:36 AM Supreme Court rules president has no immunity for unofficial acts
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the immunity case against former President Donald Trump stating, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.
The ruling, in which all of the liberal justices dissented,” added, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
Jul 01, 9:41 AM ‘It’s a BIG decision,’ Trump says
With the Supreme Court poised to rule in Trump’s presidential immunity case, former President Donald Trump is continuing to push his defense, saying Monday’s decision with be a “big” and “important” one.
“It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!” Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday.
Jul 01, 9:35 AM View from Trump’s legal world ahead of today’s ruling
While Trump’s team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why’s that?
Trump’s lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it’s not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case’s future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump’s lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump’s lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Jul 01, 9:19 AM ‘Disturbing’: What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
Jul 01, 6:41 AM Five key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
(NEW YORK) — Beaches in several states across the country have been closed to swimmers over the last few days due to harmful levels of bacteria in the water.
In Massachusetts, at least 37 beaches were closed as of Monday afternoon due to “bacterial exceedance,” according to the state’s Department of Public Health (MDPH). Many of the beaches tested positive for high levels of a type of fecal bacteria, and beachgoers were warned not to swim or enter the water in those locations to avoid risk of illness, according to the health agency.
Additionally, at least three beaches in Coronado, California – located on a peninsula in San Diego Bay – have been closed since June 26 because “[b]acteria levels exceed health standards.” San Diego County’s Department of Environmental Health and Quality said such closures are usually due to sewage or chemical spills.
Further, New York’s Suffolk County last week issued an advisory against bathing at 63 beaches due to increased bacteria levels caused by heavy rainfall and stormwater runoff.
Although health officials did not elaborate on what types of bacteria were found in California or New York, officials in Massachusetts identified the bacteria as enterococci. The bacteria are typically found in the intestinal tracts of warm-blooded animals, including humans, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and may “indicate possible contamination of streams and rivers by fecal waste.”
Enterococci bacteria commonly cause urinary tract infections, and can also cause blood infections and endocarditis, an inflammation of the lining of the heart’s values and chambers, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Heavy rains after long periods of drought can pick up animal or human excrement, which can then be carried by runoff into nearby bodies of water, including oceans. Heavy rains can also cause sewage systems to overflow, causing untreated sewage to likewise contaminate bodies of water.
Additionally, two beaches in Massachusetts were closed due to high levels of cyanobacteria, according to the MDPH. Often referred to as blue-green algae, cyanobacteria are often found in freshwater but can appear in saltwater or brackish water, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) . The bacteria itself doesn’t infect humans but can produce toxins that make people sick.
Ingestion of water that contains cyanobacteria can cause symptoms including headaches, stomach pain, dizziness, vomiting, and diarrhea. It can also cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, throat and lungs.
Cyanobacteria can multiply quickly in warm waters that become rich in nutrients, including from fertilizers and septic tank overflows, the CDC said.
Four beaches in Michigan also were closed on Monday due to high levels of Escherichia coli (E. coli), bacteria, according to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy.
E. coli is another bacterium that lives in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals. Most types of E. coli are harmless, but many strains can cause severe illness, including diarrhea, stomach cramps and vomiting, according to the CDC.
The CDC recommends staying out of bodies of water – including oceans, lakes and rivers – if the water looks cloudier than usual, is discolored, or smells bad. Swimmers are also cautioned to stay out of the water if they see pipes draining into or around the water, of if they themselves have diarrhea.
