In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has rejected the "independent state legislature theory," diminishing state legislatures' nearly unlimited power to regulate federal elections. The ruling in Moore v. Harper serves as a preventive measure against a recurrence of the controversial aftermath of the 2020 election, which saw concerns raised about the potential manipulation of future elections. Speaking to Sputnik, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein explained "the importance of the decision as a practical political matter."
"If you have an independent state legislature theory, it would mean that after the popular vote that the state legislature, after they can pull a bait-and-switch, they can say 'we're going to elect presidential electors according to the popular vote,'" he told Sputnik.
While the ruling restricts the powers of state legislatures, it does not remove federal oversight. The Supreme Court left room for federal intervention in cases where there is a potential distortion of state law by the judiciary, indicating that the federal government bears the responsibility for safeguarding against state judiciaries manipulating their laws to influence elections. The verdict by SCOTUS is reported by media sources as a "striking rebuke against Trump" in a 6-3 judgment.
In a separate matter, concerns have been raised among Republican politicians regarding the recent indictment of former President Donald Trump by the Manhattan District Attorney's office, with some arguing that it is politically motivated. The charges stem from actions taken before Trump's presidency, specifically related to payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The prosecution's use of an untested legal theory to justify these payments has faced scrutiny. This unfamiliar legal territory raises the possibility that a judge could dismiss the case or reduce the severity of the charges.
“Nobody in their right mind would believe that [District Attorney Alvin] Bragg would be going after John Smith or even John Edwards on a case like this. It’s obviously an example of ‘Get Trump’...and it’s so, so dangerous,” Alan Dershowitz, professor of law, emeritus at Harvard Law School, opined on Megyn Kelly’s show.
A media source has suggested that Trump's attention from prosecutors due to his high-profile status is perceived as potentially distorting the justice system. While the legal implications of the indictment are modest, its significance has been amplified due to Trump's fame. But proving selective or malicious prosecution entails high legal hurdles, necessitating substantial evidence of improper motives and examples of others evading charges for similar actions.
Fein, however, cautions that Trump's approach to legal proceedings, characterized by his disregard for legal advice and propensity to treat courtrooms as political stages, could lead to severe legal consequences.