Legal Crossroads: Key Updates on Mail-In Ballots, SEC Challenges, Historic Donations, and Trump's Legal Battles
The Allied Outsourcing
Medical Record Reviews | Virtual Assistance | Paralegal & Support | Legal Administrative & Secretarial Services
Pennsylvania Judge Extends Mail-In Ballot Deadline Following Trump Campaign Lawsuit
In a significant legal ruling, a judge in Pennsylvania — a critical battleground state — has given voters in Bucks County until Friday to request mail-in ballots. This extension was granted after former President Donald Trump's campaign, GOP U.S. Senate candidate Dave McCormick, and the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed some voters were wrongly turned away from requesting mail-in ballots during the presidential primary election.
The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday following reports that voters were turned away by county office officials who sent them home when long lines formed leading up to the 5 p.m. deadline on Tuesday. This prompted immediate legal action from the Trump campaign and its allies, resulting in an order from Judge Jeffrey Trauger extending the deadline. This extension gives voters in Bucks County more time to apply for, receive, or return their mail-in ballots, ensuring they can vote in the upcoming election.
RNC chair Michael Whatley called the judge's ruling a historic win. "This is a historic win that will enable our voters to vote those votes under Pennsylvania law," Whatley told reporters. Though the three-day extension is a boon to Democrats, he said it remains unclear whether it would benefit Republicans or Democrats more. Democrats have long depended on mail-in voting, which Trump has repeatedly criticized as being susceptible to fraud (an assertion for which there is no evidence).
The extended deadline was approved in Bucks County, which narrowly supported Democratic President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. County officials released a statement reiterating their commitment to ensuring that every eligible person can vote and urged the state legislature to provide more apparent election laws. "We believe strongly in voter enfranchisement," the county said, emphasizing their dedication to ensuring all eligible voters can cast their ballots.
The lawsuit claimed some voters standing in line were told by security officers to leave the facility before 5 p.m. despite state officials saying people in line would be allowed to apply for a ballot by that time. Pennsylvania's top election official, Al Schmidt, responded to the allegations in a video posted on X (formerly Twitter). Schmidt said videos on social media of the incident were out of context or wrong and emphasized the importance of verifying voter identities, a process that can take time.
This lawsuit is part of a broader pattern followed by Trump and his associates, who have filed numerous lawsuits before the election. These lawsuits often aim to limit mail-in voting, which Democrats and democracy advocates argue is a preemptive challenge to election outcomes if Trump loses. The RNC, however, insists these legal actions are designed to protect the vote. Separately, the RNC urged the U.S. Supreme Court to stop Pennsylvania from counting mail-in ballots rejected due to voting mistakes.
This legal battle highlights the intense scrutiny surrounding mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state where both parties are vying for its 19 electoral votes. The extension, allowing voters in Bucks County until Friday to request and return their mail-in ballots, ensures electoral integrity while maintaining voter access. The outcome of these legal battles and their impact on voter turnout could be decisive in the election, influencing American politics for years to come.
Navigating the New Legal Landscape: SEC's Rulemaking in the Biden Era
Biden's first months have seen a tectonic shift in the pace of SEC rulemaking, with dramatic and potentially precedent-setting implications. Initially, the agency ran up the score on regulatory activity. However, recent adverse rulings for the SEC and a more challenging legal landscape have compelled it to hit the brakes and reassess its approach.
A Legal Environment of Escalating Hostility
The U.S. courts have prevented the SEC from regulating private funds, condemned its economic reasoning for requiring share buyback disclosures, and reduced its authority to punish wrongdoers. Equally important, after several Supreme Court decisions limiting the SEC's ability to interpret vague laws and enact extensive rules in stiff opposition from companies, the agency has been crippled in its regulatory developments.
Rethinking Strategies
Following such failures, SEC officials have to rethink their rulemaking and enforcement actions so that they may bear the weight of judicial review. Gary Gensler, the chair of the SEC, has stated that when courts strike against it, the agency must change course. Some legal experts indicate the shift, and court filings show that more than a dozen Gensler-era rules dealing with private funds, climate change, and diversity are being undone or delayed—or could be undone due to legal challenges.
The Road to Challenges
The intersection of nationwide litigation assaults on the SEC's rulemaking attempts displays the vulnerable Wall Street's watchdog faces in wrapping up what some regulatory advocates view as foundational protections. These challenges are especially salient since a pivotal election year approaches and will affect Gensler's baseline legacy. If elected, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump promised to fire Gensler and cut regulations.
Skeptical Courts and Agency Limitations
As Penn law professor Jill Fisch writes, the SEC will have a higher bar to clear in justifying its positions and fewer friendly courts. It will make the agency chair's job impossible to do anything within this new reality. Notwithstanding these difficulties, Gensler has recorded significant successes, including essential reforms to the capital markets that advance enhanced capital formation and point towards heightened investor protection, market efficiency, and resilience.
Ambitious Beginnings
Appointed by President Biden and confirmed in 2021, Gensler wasted no time pursuing an ambitious agenda to tighten regulations, enhance dis-walled transparency, and end conflicts of interest on the StreStreete 30 new rules that the SEC proposed in 2022 was more than the post-2008 financial crisis. However, those efforts spurred litigation from conservative and business groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Managed Funds Association (MFA), which claimed that the rules were inappropriate, detrimental, or beyond the SEC's jurisdiction.
Recent Legal Wins and Continued Fights
While Gensler has seen some success overturning specific rules by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—including stock buyback disclosures and private funds transparency regulations—Gensler continues to push for significant reforms, including limits on SPACs, stock price limits, or settlement in short-selling and Treasury markets. Even when legal challenges emerge, Gensler and his team amend proposals based on public comment and move them forward as appropriate.
Difficulties Around Enforcement
Enforcement actions have also been complicated. The SEC dropped several malpractice cases after the Supreme Court limited its ability to seek fraud penalties through in-house tribunals. While some progressives contend that Gensler has given up too much to possible litigants, ex-SEC commissioner Luis Aguilar says the agency will eventually shake off these difficulties.
The SEC is committed to protecting investors and maintaining the integrity of the marketplace, and it will continue to do so through this new legal terrain. How the agency will work to adjust and improve its rulemaking and enforcement will be an essential story to follow as it continues to play a vital role in monitoring dynamic financial markets.
Source Link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legal-attacks-are-slowing-sec-rulemaking-crucial-election-year-2024-10-31/
领英推荐
Landmark Donation Elevates University of Washington School of Law's Global Impact
The University of Washington School of Law has made headlines with a record-setting $45 million gift from the estate of Stan and Alta Barer. This remarkable donation, announced on Tuesday, is the largest single law school donation of 2024, significantly surpassing other contributions to law schools this year. The funds are earmarked for the existing Barer Institute for Leadership in Law & Global Development, a program dedicated to advancing legal education for lawyers from developing countries.
Stan Barer, a distinguished alumnus of the University of Washington School of Law, graduated in 1963. His notable career included serving as an attorney for the U.S. Senate, where he contributed to drafting the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. Later, he co-founded several transportation and distribution companies. Stan Barer passed away in 2021, preceded by his wife Alta in 2019. Their legacy continues through this transformative gift, supporting international lawyers pursuing a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree in sustainable global development at the University of Washington.
The Barer Institute, established in 2010, focuses on bringing mid-career attorneys from developing countries to the University of Washington for a one-year program. This initiative enhances the participants' legal expertise and equips them with the skills to promote sustainable development in their home countries. The infusion of $45 million will allow the institute to expand its reach and impact, fostering a new generation of global legal leaders.
In comparison, other significant law school donations this year include a $10 million gift from attorney John Simmons and his wife Jayne to Southern Illinois University, which resulted in the rebranding of its law school as the Southern Illinois University Simmons Law School. The University of Missouri also received $10 million from the estate of an anonymous donor in March, and Creighton University School of Law announced a $9.7 million donation from the estate of alumnus James Menehan last month. Despite these generous contributions, the Barer gift stands out for its size and potential impact.
Historically, the most significant gift to a U.S. law school was the W.P. Carey Foundation's $125 million pledge to the University of Pennsylvania in 2019, which led to the institution's renaming as the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. While not the largest in history, the Barer donation is a significant milestone for the University of Washington and highlights the importance of philanthropy in legal education.
Fundraising is crucial in supporting law schools, providing financial aid for students, endowing faculty positions, and expanding academic programs. The Barer gift exemplifies how targeted donations can enhance specific initiatives within a law school, creating lasting benefits for the institution and the broader legal community.
However, the impact of such donations is subject to controversy. Recently, a conservative federal appeals court judge urged donors to reconsider their contributions to law schools unless they promote "originalism" and better prepare lawyers to argue cases based on this legal doctrine. This perspective reflects ongoing debates about the direction of legal education and the role of philanthropy in shaping it.
The University of Washington School of Law's $45 million windfall from the Barer estate is a testament to the power of visionary giving. It underscores the potential for strategic philanthropy to drive meaningful change in legal education and global development. As the Barer Institute grows, it will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in cultivating legal leaders committed to fostering sustainable progress worldwide.
Judge Sides with Musk: Voter Giveaway Stays, Case Moves Forward
Angelo Foglietta, a Pennsylvania state judge, decided to let Elon Musk proceed with a $1 million voter giveaway in the presidential election on 31 October. The lawsuit aimed at blocking the giveaway, which was intended to financially support Donald Trump, was decided to pause while the federal court reviewed it. Musk was acclaimed for giving random $1 million cheques to people supporting or signing petitions for free speech and gun rights.??
Musk also failed to attend the court hearing, which he was obligated to attend. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner alleges the billionaire entrepreneur and his political action committee, America PAC, were involved in an ‘illegal lottery scheme’ intended to sway voters in the election between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump. The opposition party claims this giveaway constitutes an illegal lottery and violates consumer protection laws due to the misleading language involved.?
Does Musk have any links with Washington?
Donald Trump was publicly citing that if he won the election, he would give the cabinet position to Elon Musk. Not only this, but there have been several contracts with federal agencies, and he has seen numerous instances of his interactions with U.S. regulators. The major ones include contracts with his company SpaceX and Tesla, incorporating Tesla cars, EVs, Satellites, and spacecraft.? He has given about $120 million to America PAC, as per the federal disclosures to supporters of Donald Trump. He was also seen citing posts about the win in elections. A post, "American Justice FTW" on his platform, X was seen going viral after his court hearing.?
Elon Musk has Krasner also filed an emergency motion to proceed the case back to state court, as they believed it to be a tactic for Musk to delay his court proceedings until Election Day. During a courtroom discussion, Prosecutor John Summers also expressed the same concern, owing it to be more of a state issue. In contrast, Matthew Haverstick, attorney for Elon Musk, expressed that America PAC should be held accountable for all the case purposes rather than dragging Musk as a defendant for publicity purposes.??
In all the courtroom exchanges, Judge Foglietta humorously expressed that Musk would not need a rocket to Philadelphia, so attending the lawsuit shouldn’t be a concern when they talked of addressing the safeguarding of voter’s personal information when passing on a giveaway, which was acclaimed as was not randomly given.
Source Link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/musk-due-court-1-million-voter-giveaway-faces-courtroom-test-2024-10-31/?
Beyond the Polls: The Fate of Trump’s Legal Issues Post-Election
November 5 presidential election results will not only decide the future course of his political image but also be a predicament to the ongoing legal battles he is struggling with. The victory is the most significant one in the political course of U.S. history. It will either leave him strangled in criminal cases if he gets defeated against Kamala Harris, or all of these will be paused until he finishes his political term.?
The criminal conviction in 2025 civil trials will compound his legal challenges, as he may face additional challenges regarding his current appeals of $500 million in civil judgments. However, a few legal analysts, including Chuck Rosenberg from NBC News, claim that getting the position of president will give him more legal options and strategies. Steven Cheung, Donald Trump’s campaign spokesman, confidently stated that owing to his success in the elections, all legal cases against him should be dismissed as investigations have proved that all allegations were baseless.?
Where do the Legal Cases Against the Republican Donald Trump Currently Stand?
The Hush money case, in which Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on 34 felony counts of false business records in New York, is set to arrive on 26 November, three weeks after the election. Juan Merchan, a New York Supreme Court Justice, has postponed the proceedings, stating that the conviction would be invalidated due to presidential immunity that prevents a president from performing official duties.?
The federal election interference case against Trump involves conspiracy charges against him to defraud the 2020 U.S. election results. This is expected to proceed even if Trump wins the presidential election, although this, too, will see a delay in claims of presidential immunity. Donald Trump also stated that he would fire special counsel Jack Smith the moment he becomes president. However, this would still require them to get validation from the Justice Department and dismissal from the judge.?
The Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump and more than a dozen co-defendants accused of conspiring to influence the 2020 election results will be on pause until December. The other instances include classified documents case, E. Jean Carroll appeals, Jan. 6 suits, and the ‘Exonerated 5’ suit where the same condition would be applicable.?
Trump winning the upcoming presidential election will lead to even longer delays in every case, no matter how crucial, except cases that aren’t related to their time in office. Legal analyst Barbara McQuade noted the possibility that state criminal cases against Trump might also be stayed while he is in office and could resume afterward.
Source Link: