Supreme Court decision could weaken Trump pardons

The Supreme Court has ruled that state and federal governments can separately try someone for the same offense.

Terance Gamble's federal conviction for illegally having a gun did not violate the Constitution's double jeopardy protection - even though he already had been convicted and sentenced by Alabama - the court ruled.

Decision could help state prosecutions against Trump and associates

The ruling could have implications for President Donald Trump, who has hinted that he may pardon some of his associates indicted in the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

A president can issue pardons for federal crimes only. However, had the court ruled that double jeopardy protections apply across state and federal sovereignties, then a pardon might have precluded state charges from being brought.

But it might not have been enough anyway. Unless there is a specific federal charge, states still can press their own charges. And a blanket pardon likely wouldn't suffice, because without a charge there is no jeopardy.

For more, read the Politico story.

Click here for more on the Supreme Court's decision in Gamble v. United States.

Court case could extend presidential pardon power

The Supreme Court will hear a case in December that could broaden a president's pardon power.

The case involves a man convicted of illegal possession of a firearm. Terance Gamble accepted plea bargains in both state and federal courts. He appealed his federal conviction, claiming it violated the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

Court cases as far back as 1852 have set a precedent to allow such prosecutions - because the Constitution provides separate sovereignties for the state and federal governments - with each needing to protect its own interest. It therefore has been reasoned that federal and state offenses are separate offenses.

Others have argued that the Constitution simply says a person cannot be punished more than once for the same act.

In practice, such overlaps are rare.

This could extend some presidential pardons to the state level

While the Constitution gives the president broad power to issue pardons for federal crimes, the president cannot pardon state offenses (a state's governor can).

If the court rules in this case that a person cannot be charged at both the state and federal levels for the same charge, a court could later rule that a presidential pardon would preclude a state from filing charges for offenses covered by that pardon.

For more, read The Atlantic story.

Click here to read our full explanation of Gamble v. United States.

Changed regulation could quash protests

The Trump administration is proposing a regulation that likely would restrict protests in the Washington, D.C. area - including those near the White House.

The new regulation would shrink the area available for protests and reduce the number of attendees that trigger the need for a permit. It also would make it easier for the National Park Service (NPS) to deny a permit.

It would blur the distinction between demonstrations and special events (such as festivals). It's easier to obtain a permit for a demonstration - in many instances approval is automatic unless the NPS explicitly rejects it. With less distinction, a protest that includes music might be labeled as special event.

It also might allow the government to charge fees that could make some protests cost-prohibitive. The regulation states that fees would cover damage to the area - such as trash and "harm to turf".

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the potential fees in a public comment to the proposed regulation - stating that NPS does not charge the 45 million visitors to the National Mall each year for the sanitation and turf problems they create. They stated...

"Managing public lands for the benefit of the American people is what Congress funds the National Park Service to do. That includes demonstrators just as much as tourists or hikers. While the park service may be strapped for funds, it cannot balance its budget on the backs of people seeking to exercise their constitutional rights."

For more, read The Hill story.

Click here to read the ACLU analysis of the proposed regulation.

Click here to read the proposed regulation.

Trump suggests making it illegal to protest

Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal

House votes to ban abortions after 5 months

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would ban most abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy.

In order to become law, the bill would need to be approved by the Senate and then signed by President Obama.

For more, read the New York Times story.

Click here for more on Pain-Cabable Unborn Child Protection Act.