Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Despite death threats and backlash from White House advisers over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic during the Trump administration, Dr. Anthony Fauci said he never considered resigning.

“I just felt that we have to have somebody there who is actually getting the correct information to the American public,” Fauci told “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl on Sunday.

“I have felt, and still do, a very strong responsibility to the American public, not to any administration or any person, but to the American public.”

The former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) said he was “afraid that despite the pressures and all the somewhat unusual things that were going on, if I did walk away from it, there would be little opportunity to get the correct, potentially life-saving information to the American public.”

Fauci chronicled his decades-long public health career in a new memoir, “On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service.” His book comes after he retired in 2022 as director of NIAID, a position he had held since 1984.

During that time, Fauci advised seven presidents and guided the nation’s response to infectious disease outbreaks including AIDS, Zika, Ebola and COVID-19.

The last president he served under was Joe Biden. After a debate showing that has prompted calls from several Democratic pundits, opinion writers and The New York Times Editorial Board for Biden to step aside as the party’s nominee this cycle, Karl asked Fauci if he was “surprised” by the president’s performance Thursday night.

“I don’t want to comment on anything that would have any political implication. … The one thing I can say and feel comfortable about is I have dealt with President Biden, and in my dealings with him, it’s been really very positive,” Fauci said. “He asked probing questions, he’s right on point on things. So, my personal experience has been quite positive with him.”

When asked by Karl why someone in their 80s — Biden is 81 — would want to serve as president for another four years, Fauci said he thinks it is “an individual choice that you really can’t generalize.”

“You have to take each individual person,” he continued. “You know, how they feel, what they feel they can do. You know, what their passion is, what their energy is, those are the kinds of things.”

Despite retiring from his government position, Fauci has remained a lightning rod for mainly Republican critics of how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled. Testifying before a House subcommittee earlier this month, Fauci grew emotional describing the death threats that he and his family received during his time as NIAID director.

During that hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., called for Fauci to be put in jail. “That man does not deserve to have a license. As a matter of fact, it should be revoked, and he belongs in jail,” she said.

When asked about Greene’s remarks on Sunday morning, Fauci spoke about the harm that he said can come from such comments.

“I mean, that’s bizarre, and that bizarreness leads to other crazies threatening and saying things that are also inappropriate,” he told Karl.

Karl also asked Fauci about comments former White House chief strategist and longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon made on his show “War Room” about Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray in late 2020 suggesting that they be beheaded and their heads be put “on pikes.” At the time, Twitter (now X) suspended Bannon’s podcast account, and YouTube took down the episode that seemed to imply Fauci and Wray be beheaded.

In an interview with Bannon that also aired on “This Week” Sunday, Karl pressed Bannon about those comments.

“You’re saying at a time when Anthony Fauci and his family are facing death threats, when Christopher Wray and FBI agents all the way down are facing death threats, and you’re going out and talking about putting their heads on pikes?” Karl pressed.

“A total metaphor. Anybody understands that,” Bannon responded. “That’s, that’s your overreach, by the way. They banned us, I think, on Twitter. They banned us on Facebook for that. And hey, guess what? The show got even bigger.”

On Sunday, Fauci criticized Bannon’s response, saying that his words went beyond metaphorical speech.

“These people that say they can say anything they want but it’s a figure of speech,” Fauci said. “Don’t buy that. That’s nonsense. Words matter.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democrats described President Joe Biden’s debate performance on Thursday as anywhere from “wobbly” to “disappointing” to a “disaster.” Now, they’re scrambling to figure out if he can bounce back.

Biden meandered through answers Thursday, seemingly losing his train of thought at points and sporting a slack-jawed, glazed-over expression during former President Donald Trump’s answers. The split-screen was described in brutal terms by Democrats who feared the debate compounded on what polls show are undeniable voter concerns over Biden’s age and fitness for office.

The president’s path to reelection could now hinge, in part, on the tall task of recovering from the debate and reassuring voters that despite his halting performance, he has what it takes to handle another four years in office.

Presidential historian Mark Updegrove singled out one Biden stumble when he appeared lost in an answer about tax reform, ultimately concluding with the confounding remark that “we beat Medicare,” as “the worst debate moment in U.S. presidential and vice-presidential history” and said the road to recovery would be difficult — but not impossible.

“I think this is going to be relatively difficult to turn around,” Updegrove said, “but miracles occasionally happen in politics.”

The Democratic frenzy in the hours after Thursday night’s debate has been fierce, with some operatives bringing up the prospect of replacing Biden on the 2024 ticket at this summer’s party convention.

Two aides to politicians spoken of as future presidential candidates told ABC News that outreach from worried party members has been significant, and Democratic offices on Capitol Hill received angry calls from constituents Friday over Biden’s performance, according to one senior congressional Democratic source.

For now, allies are publicly sticking with him.

“I’m with our nominee Joe Biden who wakes up every day thinking about America’s working families, not Donald Trump – a 34-time convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, and congenital liar who spent last night spewing nothing but lies,” said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, spoken of as a possible future Democratic presidential contender.

“There’s no one who saw the debate last night and thinks that President Biden had a great night. I also know there’s no one who can look at the record of the Trump administration and think that Donald Trump had a good presidency,” Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, the subject of similar whispers, said to reporters Friday. “I think we’re going to have another four years of President Biden and Vice President [Kamala] Harris.”

Some Democrats pointed to the 2022 Pennsylvania Senate race, when now-Sen. John Fetterman, D, had what was universally decried as a terrible debate after suffering a stroke only to end up defeating Republican Mehmet Oz later that year.

“No one knows more than me that a rough debate is not the sum total of the person and their record,” Fetterman wrote on X. “Chill the f*** out.”

Privately, however, Democratic operatives said they’re clamoring for Biden to shake things up after Thursday’s debate.

One senior Democratic strategist expressed skepticism that Biden’s current team “will admit a mistake” and suggested, “perhaps it’s time for some staff changes and infusing the inner circle with fresh perspective.”

“Be prepared that there may not be another debate, which means finding another way to demonstrate he’s more than up to the job,” the person said. “Would do more to let Joe be Joe rather than trying to cram him with facts and figures.”

Other operatives specifically said Biden should blitz the airwaves with sit-down interviews, including in hostile territory — a tactic the president hasn’t adopted since taking office but that party members say is unavoidable now.

“He needs to get out in front of people every day for the next week, conduct live and unscripted interviews, and make the Sunday talk show rounds. This isn’t a time for complacency and the faith that a bad performance fades on its own. It fades when it is replaced by something else,” said Jim Kessler, the co-founder of center-left think tank Third Way.

“He’d have to do it across a lot of venues,” added another adviser to a politician discussed as a future presidential contender. “He might even have to do one on Fox.”

Experts also predicted that the debate’s timing could help Biden turn the page. Thursday’s event happened unprecedentedly early in an election cycle, and, with over four months to Election Day, countless news cycles could bury the debate if sensational enough.

“In some ways, the early debate could be beneficial for the comeback narrative,” said Aaron Kall, director of debate for the University of Michigan’s Debate Program. “I think because it’s so early, that could decrease the overall impact of a debate on the election and give opportunities other extraneous events, black swan events, to totally drown out the effect of a bad first performance.”

Biden is already working to alleviate concerns, addressing the debate at a rally in North Carolina Friday in which he offered a more vociferous defense of his record than he did on Thursday.

“I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious,” he told a Raleigh crowd. “I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know: I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job.”

The Biden campaign also touted a $14 million grassroots fundraising haul from debate day heading into Friday morning. It also said the hour after the debate was its best fundraising hour since the campaign’s launch in April 2023.

For some, though, Biden’s rally Friday underscored his Thursday performance.

“Where was this last night? Why wasn’t that energy there last night?” asked rallygoer Jenny Ackerman.

And some Democrats were outright pessimistic that the debate’s political damage wouldn’t be permanent.

“I don’t think it blows over,” a source familiar with the Biden campaign’s strategy said.

“Remember the Hindenburg!” added one Democratic donor of the debate.

Underscoring the damage dealt from the debate, Senate Republicans’ campaign arm swiftly released an ad splicing Democratic Senate candidates’ praise for Biden’s fitness for office with moments from the debate when the president stumbled. The made-for-television gaffes are likely to be featured in GOP attacks across the airwaves throughout the year, with Republicans virtually dancing over the debate’s impact on both Biden and down-ballot Democrats.

“Senate Democrats have spent years propping up Joe Biden despite his obvious mental deficiencies, now the world can see he isn’t he fit for the job. This disaster is on their hands,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Philip Letsou.

The more pessimistic Democrats pointed to the potency of those attacks to sound the alarm that the damage may have been done.

“It’s hard to unsee what we all saw so starkly and vividly. Think of it this way. Biden may be the most experienced pilot in the world, but would you be comfortable flying in an airplane Captain Biden was at the controls of after what you saw last night?” asked on Democratic pollster.

When asked what Biden could do to calm the passengers, the person just replied, “Turn over the controls to a younger, experienced and competent pilot.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — On Monday, Steve Bannon will be behind bars in federal prison, but the ex-Trump White House adviser said Friday he’s feeling great and has no regrets about defying Congress to avoid talking about his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.

In fact, Bannon told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl that he considers himself a “political prisoner” and that his four-month sentence will only make his influence grow.

“I’m a political prisoner … It won’t change me. It will not suppress my voice. My voice will not be suppressed when I’m there,” he told Karl.

Bannon is set to report to federal prison on Monday after the Supreme Court denied a request Friday to remain out of prison while he continues to appeal his contempt of Congress conviction.

Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison in October 2022 after being found guilty of defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

After Bannon was sentenced, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols agreed to postpone the jail term while Bannon appealed the conviction. Last month the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction and Nichols ordered Bannon on June 6 to report to prison on July 1.

Watch more of Jonathan Karl’s interview with Steve Bannon on Sunday’s episode of “This Week.”

Bannon told Karl he still has no regrets about defying the House Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena and is looking to appeal the court decision.

“If it took me going to prison to finally get the House to start to move, to start to delegitimize the illegitimate J6 committee, then, hey, guess what, my going to prison is worth it,” he said.

The January 6th committee was established by a House resolution that passed along party lines in 2021 by a vote of 222-190. Two Republicans, Illinois’ Adam Kinzinger and Wyoming’s Liz Cheney, joined Democrats in supporting the measure and later served on the committee.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — One day after President Joe Biden took the stage to debate former President Donald Trump, he arrived in New York City Friday to celebrate the opening ceremony of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center.

The opening ceremony also honors the 55th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, a six-day-long series of demonstrations against police raids on gay bars.

In his brief comments, Biden celebrated the LGBTQ+ community and praised its members for a courage that he said has inspired movements across the globe. The president said “the course of history was changed forever” by events that occurred at the Stonewall Inn, marking a pivotal moment in the fight for gay liberation.

“This beloved bar became the site of a call to cry for freedom, dignity, equality and respect — rebellion that galvanized the LGBTQ+ community all across the nation and, frankly, around the world,” Biden said.

The Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center is the first LGBTQ+ visitor center within the National Park System. Organized by LGBTQ advocacy groups PrideLive, the center hopes to serve as a living monument to those who have shaped the LGBTQ+ equality movement. President Obama designated the Stonewall National Monument a national monument eight years ago.

Biden attended the Stonewall event after delivering remarks at a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, which was his first public appearance since his nationally televised debate Thursday evening with former President Donald Trump. Biden said he was inspired by the bravery of the LGBTQ+ community.

“Your courage and contributions enrich every part of American life. They set an example, I’m not exaggerating, for the entire world. That’s what this center this monument this month is all about,” Biden said.

The president was joined on stage by musician and gay rights activist Sir Elton John.

“As President Biden has reminded us today, we face one of those seminal moments: Do we stand up for our vision and our values, or let misinformation and senseless scapegoating turn back the clock?” John asked. “No f—— way. No. In this moment. too. we must take pride and fight on.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In response to court rulings earlier this week that blocked key components of a student loan policy, the Biden administration is planning to place about 3 million student loan borrowers into a monthslong payment pause.

The pause would be very similar to the pandemic-era student loan moratorium — borrowers would not need to make payments and interest would not accrue.

The SAVE Plan, dubbed the most affordable plan for borrowers and President Joe Biden’s hallmark surviving student debt reform effort, has been the target of two Republican-led lawsuits that argue the Biden administration has gone beyond its authority in aspects of the plan. The move to pause millions of borrowers’ bills comes after courts in Kansas and Missouri ruled in the GOP states’ favor on Monday night, deciding the Biden administration could not go forward with further implementation of the SAVE Plan, which was rolled out last August and is used by 8 million people.

In particular, the rulings halted the Department of Education from cutting borrowers’ payments beginning July 1, when they were set to decrease from 10% of a borrowers’ discretionary income down to 5% for those with undergraduate loans, and from canceling any more loans for people who’d taken out small initial loan balances but had been paying them down for over a decade. So far, 414,000 people have qualifed for such debt relief.

In a Thursday night appeal of the Kansas decision, the Department of Justice said the government would need to place borrowers into a pause in order to comply with the judge’s ruling on the monthly payment aspect, and instead asked for an emergency motion to stop the ruling from going into effect.

“If the injunction takes effect, it will inflict irreparable harm on the federal government in the form of unrecoverable disruption costs and create extraordinary confusion and chaos for borrowers,” wrote Brian Boynton, the Department of Justice’s principal deputy assistant attorney general.

The process of reverting back to charging borrowers 10% of their income will take “at least several months,” Boynton argued, because it took months of preparation to get ready for the new payment calculation. During that time, “the Department will have no choice but to place a large number of SAVE borrowers into forbearance, until its servicers’ systems can service loans with a correct calculation of payments due.”

“The resulting chaos, confusion, and unrecoverable cost should be avoided,” he wrote.

The Department of Justice also made the case that borrowers will be harmed by the temporary loan pause because, while they won’t be required to pay their loans, the months in forbearance won’t apply toward eventual debt relief under plans like the public service loan forgiveness program, PSLF, or other income-driven repayment plans that forgive borrowers’ debts after 20-25 years of payment. During the pandemic payment pause, each month was counted toward those programs.

Borrowers enrolled in SAVE were already placed into forbearance, also known as a payment pause, for the month of July in an attempt to smoothly transition to the lower payment calculation, prior to the court rulings. Should the judges not grant the federal government it’s request, that forbearance is slated to continue into the coming months.

The payment pause would apply to slightly less than half of the 8 million people enrolled in SAVE. About 4.5 million people who qualify for $0 payments because of low incomes would not be included in the pause.

Though the Monday court rulings dealt a blow to the plan, the Department of Education maintained that it still carried strong benefits for borrowers. In addition to offering the lowest monthly payment for a majority of borrowers, the plan also shields borrowers from unpaid interest accrual, one of the largest additional fees that borrowers face on their loans, because unpaid interest is forgiven so long as qualified borrowers make their monthly payments on the loan itself – even if their required payment is $0.

Of course, the setback is now part of a pattern for Biden’s attempts at major changes to the student loan system.

College debt is a major 2024 campaign issue for young voters, and many were left disappointed when Biden couldn’t follow through on his pledge to cancel $10,000 to $20,000 in debt last year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his sweeping debt relief policy.

Biden’s continued efforts to cancel debt in a more piecemeal fashion have now reached nearly 4.75 million borrowers, which he continues to highlight on the campaign trail in an attempt to gain support from a key voting group. Just 3% of the debt relief issued by the Biden administration has been through the SAVE Plan, while the vast majority has been through fixes to programs like PSLF and income-driven repayment plans, which were plagued by administrative failures, or going after colleges that have defrauded students.

And the administration is continuing to work on a Plan B to Biden’s initial, widespread debt relief proposal, taking a narrower approach that could cancel debt for about 30 million people in total, including the people who’ve already had debts canceled.

The administration hopes this more bureaucratic approach will not be overturned by the court yet again — though it is almost certain to face lawsuits once it reaches its final stages this summer.

The number of borrowers who may receive student loan debt forgiveness under the new policy proposal is vast: it could range from automatic cancellation for people who are on the edge of defaulting on their loans in the near future to application-based relief that could be used on more individualized cases, like people who are struggling to pay down their debts because of costs like health care or housing. Other factors include looking at the amount borrowers are paying toward their student loans compared to how much money borrowers have, including income and assets, as well as loans they have outside of higher education and whether they’ve been able to pay those down.

The department also wants to look at whether borrowers received a Pell Grant, designed for low-income college students, and whether they use any other government support programs.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHIINGTON) — House Democrats spent their Friday morning huddling on the floor in hushed, anguished conversations about President Joe Biden’s debate performance.

“It was a f—— disaster,” one member said, adding that a lot of members believe Biden should suspend his campaign.

“If something happens it has to happen in the next couple of days,” another House Democrat told ABC News, adding that the only House lawmaker who may be capable of getting through to Biden is Nancy Pelosi, “Catholic to Catholic.”

For her part, Pelosi told reporters that Biden “got off to a bad start but he came through okay on the issues later.”

“Compared to a person who was lying the whole time, we saw integrity on one side and dishonesty on the other,” she said.

When later asked if Biden is the best messenger for the party, Pelosi responded: “I’m a very big supporter of President Biden’s. He’s been a great president and done great things for the country.”

Even Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., one of Biden’s biggest boosters and often credited for saving Biden’s 2020 primary campaign, said his performance was “strike one.”

But he added that Democrats should “stay the course,” and that there is “no better Democrat” to lead the ticket than Biden.

Former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged Biden had a “bad night.”

“He is a good man. He’s got a great record. All the things he said about the economy are actually true — he had a bad night. Some of us have bad nights sometimes,” Hoyer said.

Moderate Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., said they “all would’ve liked a better performance by the president.”

“Regardless of what happens, I have got to fight for my district — whoever becomes the president — whether it’s President Biden, former president Trump or some other Democrat or Republican … I am going to fight for my district,” Suozzi said.

Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota said, “Joe Biden didn’t communicate, and Donald Trump lied every time he opened his mouth.”

However, multiple House lawmakers purposely ignored reporters’ questions about Biden’s performance at the debate. Rep. Jamie Raskin, another Maryland Democrat, appeared to have faked a phone call. Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., said “you guys are crazy” and Rep. Susan Wild, who represents a competitive Pennsylvania district, talked about the weather when pressed on the topic.

One Democratic source acknowledged that only Biden’s tight-knit circle of family and aides could convince the president to change course. Even former President Barack Obama, the source speculated, would face resistance to any effort to encourage Biden to step aside.

“Obama should tell him he saved the country once from Trump, and he can do so again” by suspending his bid, the source said.

But hours later, Obama appeared to dash hopes he would intervene, posting on X that “bad debate nights happen” but that he still supported Biden’s bid.

“This election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself. Between someone who tells the truth; who knows right from wrong and will give it to the American people straight — and someone who lies through his teeth for his own benefit,” he wrote. “Last night didn’t change that, and it’s why so much is at stake in November.”

President Biden addressed the performance himself during a rally on Friday afternoon in Raleigh, North Carolina.

“Folks, I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but … I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong, and I know how to do this job,” he told a roaring crowd.

The Biden campaign, which is now openly acknowledging the president had a bad night, was also asked Friday about calls for Biden to step down or drop out.

Biden Campaign communication director Michael Tyler said there are “no conversations about that whatsoever.”

Tyler was also emphatic that Biden will take part in the ABC News debate scheduled for Sept. 10.

ABC News’ Molly Nagle contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Friday addressed his poor performance in Thursday’s presidential debate, just hours after he faltered on stage in his matchup against former President Donald Trump.

A senior campaign aide told ABC News that the president is “absolutely” not considering dropping out of the race after stumbling with answers and is committed to a second debate. During the rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, a more energetic-appearing Biden acknowledged that he’s not a young man, but contended that his morals and history prove that he’s still fit for the job.

“Folks, I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but … I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong, and I know how to do this job,” he told the roaring crowd. “I know, like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back up.”

The crowd constantly shouted “Four more years,” during the event which also included remarks from first lady Jill Biden

Biden spent much of the rally pointing out what he called Trump’s false claims during the debate about the economy, immigration and crime.

“I spent 90 minutes on stage debating a guy with the morals of an alley cat,” Biden said repeating a zinger from the debate. “I think he set a new record for the number of lies told at a debate.”

Biden dug in further bringing up Trump’s conviction in a New York criminal court and pending criminal and civil trials.

“Donald Trump isn’t just a convicted felon. Donald Trump is a one-man crime wave,” the president said.

Biden also reiterated that Trump helped to end abortion rights for women across the country and contended that the former president and “MAGA Republicans” would push forward a national abortion ban.

“I made it clear last night you reelect me and Kamala [Harris] we will make Roe v. Wade the law of the land,” he said.

Jill Biden, who wore a dress with the word “vote” written all over it, also defended his performance.

“What you saw last night on the debate stage was Joe Biden, a president with integrity and character who told the truth,” she said. “And Donald Trump told lie after lie after lie.”

Biden told reporters immediately after the debate that he had a sore throat and didn’t have concerns about his performance.

“It’s hard to debate a liar,” he said.

When the president and first lady landed in Raleigh early Friday morning they were greeted at the tarmac by prominent North Carolina Democrats, including State Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue, and about 250 supporters.

Biden spent time speaking with the supporters and took photos with them before he left the airport.

Following the Raleigh rally, the president was headed to New York City to deliver remarks at the grand opening ceremony of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, the first LGBTQIA+ visitor center within the National Park system.

Biden will end his day with a closed-door campaign reception in New York.

ABC News’ MaryAlice Parks contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court appears to be saving its most consequential ruling this term for last.

When the justices meet on Monday for a final day of opinions, they are expected to issue a blockbuster 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 is is claiming such immunity in order 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 March 4 but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.

Lower courts have flatly rejected Trump’s arguments.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s election subversion case, said whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the position “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

And a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals later unanimously rejected Trump’s claims, warning if they were to be accepted they would “collapse our system of separated powers.”

While the Supreme Court did not appear on board with Trump’s more sweeping claim of “absolute” immunity, several justices appeared open to some level of protection for former presidents when they heard oral arguments in late April — months after Smith first asked the court to intervene on the issue.

Their questioning largely focused on what presidential acts would be protected and which would not.

Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump’s attorney if it would mean a former president could escape criminal liability for ordering a coup or selling nuclear secrets. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wondered if past presidents who oversaw controversial policies like the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II or Operation Mongoose would have been prosecuted after they left office.

What the justices decide on the immunity issue will set a new standard for presidential power, and will affect whether Trump stands trial for his unprecedented actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

“We are writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said during arguments.

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A small group of New Jersey herring fishermen landed a huge catch at the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday, writing for a 6-3 majority, significantly reeled in the power of federal regulators, tossing out a 40-year precedent on agency authority and a Commerce Department rule that the fishermen said could drive them out of business.

The opinion — officially overturning a 1984 decision known as “Chevron” — creates a big splash, making it much easier for businesses and other interests to challenge rules touching every aspect of American life from food inspections, workplace safety, tax collection, environmental regulation and more.

The case involved a regulation by the National Marine Fisheries Service ordering some commercial herring fishermen to pay the salaries of government observers federal law requires they carry aboard their vessels.

The law — the Magnuson-Stevens Act — does not spell out how the observers, who collect scientific data on the nation’s fisheries, should be funded. The agency had argued the law’s ambiguity supported its interpretation that the boat operators must pay in some instances.

Lower courts upheld the regulation citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, which held, in part, that courts should defer to the scientific and health experts at agencies when a law isn’t clear, so long as their regulations are reasonable.

Roberts said that holding was an error and that judges, not bureaucrats, should interpret what an ambiguous law does or does not allow.

“Chevron is overruled,” he wrote. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedures Act] requires.”

“Careful attention to the judgement of the Executive Branch [agency] may inform that inquiring. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it,” Roberts continued. “But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”

The ruling deals the biggest blow to the administrative state in a generation and hands a long-sought victory to conservative legal groups and business lobbyists who have spent years pushing for the court to strike down what is known as “Chevron deference” and rein in agency power.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision would cause a “massive shock to the legal system,” since more than 17,000 disputes over federal regulations over the past 40 years have relied on the Chevron doctrine — most decided in the government’s favor.

The discarding of precedent, Kagan wrote, would supplant the expertise of subject-matter specialists at all levels of government.

“It gives courts the power to make all manner of scientific and technical judgments. It gives courts the power to make all manner of policy calls, including about how to weigh competing goods and values. It puts courts at the apex of the administrative process as to every conceivable subject,” she wrote.

Public interest groups said tens of thousands of government rules could be called into question, touching everything from the environment to workplace safety to technology and health care.

“How far-reaching the decision is remains to be seen,” said Gordon Todd, a Supreme Court litigator with Sidley and federal regulatory law expert. “The Court sought to minimize the retroactive impact of its decision by noting that prior decisions that relied on Chevron deference are themselves entitled to ‘statutory stare decisis,’ but it remains to be seen the extent to which such decisions remain valid.”

“In the short-run we expect a significant increase in regulatory litigation, including challenges to existing regulations, ongoing rulemakings, and existing precedents,” Todd said.

Jerry Masoudi, former chief counsel of the Food and Drug Administration, said the ruling was a dramatic shift in the balance of power between agencies and courts.

“These decisions will not affect FDA’s case-by-case decisions on scientific issues, like product approvals,” Masoudi said in a statement, “but rules underlying these processes may be open to broader challenge.”

Environmental groups were particularly alarmed by the Supreme Court’s decision, warning that scientific experts could now be overridden by judges with little familiarity with the subjects they are addressing.

“The American people really rely on our public institutions to put protections in place for clean air and water, for, our health and our children’s health, for safe and secure homes and businesses. And what this really means is that our ability to rely on expertise and science to make those decisions and put those protections in place is really in jeopardy now,” said Meredith Moore, the director of the Fish Conservation Program at the Ocean Conservancy, in an interview with ABC News.

“What we’re going to see is lots and lots of lawsuits, taking on everything that the government does from health and safety to the environment to tech issues like AI and our cybersecurity,” Moore added.

As for the herring fishermen, one practical impact of the ruling means they will be spared a potential fee of up to $700 a day.

“Today’s restoration of the separation of powers is a victory for small, family-run businesses like ours, whether they’re involved in fishing, farming, or retail,” said Bill Bright, a third generation herring fisherman in Cape May, New Jersey, and plaintiff in the case.

“Congress never authorized industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery. And agency efforts to impose such funding hurts our ability to make an honest living. Nothing is more important than protecting the livelihoods of our families and crews.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday limited the scope of a federal obstruction statute used by prosecutors to charge more than 300 defendants involved with the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, including former President Donald Trump.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, said the government must show in those cases that the alleged obstruction related to “impairing the availability or integrity” of “records, documents, or objects” used in the disrupted proceeding.

The Justice Department had applied the charge more broadly in many cases, alleging that the physical presence of some of the rioters inside Capitol was alone “obstruction of an official proceeding” under the law.

Roberts said the statute in question — the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which was enacted after the Enron scandal to prevent destruction of evidence in financial crimes — must be read in context.

“It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away … a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place,” Roberts wrote.

The decision was at least a partial victory for former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer who was among the rioters on Jan. 6 and challenged the obstruction charge, which can carry up to 20 years in prison.

The Supreme Court made clear, however, that prosecutors could retain the obstruction charges if more properly framed and supported by evidence that the defendants’ actions involved documents of some kind.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said “Congress meant what it said.”

The law “is a very broad provision,” she wrote, “and admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?) But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the test anyway.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed disappointment with the ruling but said it would not impact the vast majority of the Justice Department’s 1,400 criminal cases related to Jan. 6.

“There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer,” Garland said in a statement. “For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.”

It was also not clear how much of an impact the court’s decision would have on special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against Trump. Two of the four charges involve the same obstruction statute used against Fischer.

“It will be a much tougher case to argue that he impaired an official proceeding if the prosecution must also show that it related to the destruction or alteration, or related activities, of documents,” said Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller, an election law scholar.

“For rioters physically present at the Capitol that day, it will be a tougher but possible showing. For Trump, however, it may be more about whether paperwork submitted to Pence relating to other electoral votes or what to do with those votes rises to the level of criminal activity in the statute,” Muller said. “We’ll see whether the Department of Justice keeps this charge against Trump, but it may fall back to some of the other charges and rely more heavily on them instead.”

Also hanging over the Trump case is whether the high court will allow it to proceed at all. On Monday, the justices are expected to hand down a decision in Trump v. U.S. that could determine how much, if any, immunity from prosecution the former president enjoys.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.