Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has testified before a grand jury in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into former President Trump, The New York Times reported on Tuesday. 

Two people briefed on the matter told the outlet that Meadows, who served during the last year of the Trump administration, had testified, but when he did so and if prosecutors asked him about one or both of the cases Smith is overseeing related to Trump is unclear. 

Smith has been investigating Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and broader efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, as well as the classified and sensitive documents that were taken to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Fla. 

The Hill has reached out to an attorney for Meadows, George Terwilliger, for comment. 

“Without commenting on whether or not Mr. Meadows has testified before the grand jury or in any other proceeding, Mr. Meadows has maintained a commitment to tell the truth where he has a legal obligation to do so.” Terwilliger told the Times. 

Meadows served as chief of staff as Trump was attempting to win reelection and was during the attempts from Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 results. Two people briefed on the matter told the Times that Meadows also had a role in trying to discuss the documents that were taken from the White House, and Meadows also served as one of Trump’s representatives to the National Archives. 

Meadows was among several former Trump aides who were ordered in March to testify before a grand jury in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) probe of the insurrection. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court judge’s order in April following an appeal from Trump. 

Meadows refused to testify before the House select committee that investigated the Capitol riot during the past session of Congress and was held in contempt, but the DOJ declined to prosecute him. 

The Times reported that some Trump advisers had believed Meadows could be a major witness in the probes that Smith is conducting. 

The report comes after Trump’s attorneys met with federal prosecutors on Monday to discuss the DOJ’s investigation into the documents.

Trump lashed out on social media after the meeting.

“The Marxists and Fascists in the DOJ & FBI are going after me at a level and speed never seen before in our Country, and I did nothing wrong,” he wrote in one post. “Joe Biden kept (keeps) thousand of documents, in many locations, some illegally taken from skiffs while he was a Senator, a big portion of which were classified. He didn’t want to give them back, and still doesn’t. Nothing happens to him, with same reasonable prosecutor who correctly exonerated Mike Pence. I have a much different prosecutor, a Trump hater!”

A federal judge Tuesday granted media organizations’ requests to unseal the names of the people who cosigned Rep. George Santos’s (R-N.Y.) $500,000 bond in his criminal fraud case.

The order is a blow to Santos, whose attorney Monday asked a judge to keep the names of the bond cosigners sealed. The congressman's lawyer, Joseph Murray, expressed concern for the sponsors should their identities be revealed, citing a “media frenzy” around the Santos case.

“If this Court is so inclined to unseal the sureties, we truly fear for their health, safety and well being,” Murray said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Anne Shields gave Santos until noon Friday to appeal the ruling, ordering the names to remain under seal in the meantime.

Murray previously indicated Santos would rather go to jail ahead of trial rather than allow the suretors to face the public attention.

“My client would rather surrender to pretrial detainment than subject these suretors to what will inevitably come,” Murray said.

The Hill has reached out to Murray and Santos’s congressional office for comment.

DEVELOPING.

A federal appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday about whether to continue a pause of a Texas district court's ruling that struck down an ObamaCare provision requiring insurers to cover preventive services for free.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit temporarily paused Judge Reed O’Connor’s decision until a panel could hear oral arguments on whether the pause should be continued during the appeals process.

Keeping the stay in place until the court rules on the merits of the case would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to continue to mandate most insurance companies cover the HIV prevention drug PrEP as well as a range of preventive services like annual physicals, cancer screenings and Pap tests with no cost-sharing for patients.

The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover more than 100 preventive health services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The provision is broadly popular, and has been in effect since 2010.

A lawsuit put forward by a group of conservative Texas employers and individuals challenged that requirement, arguing the take force's members are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate, yet its recommendations are binding.

O'Connor agreed with most of the arguments, and his ruling invalidated the entire task force.

The judge also invalidated the law’s requirement that health plans cover HIV treatment. He said the mandate forced the plaintiff, a Christian employer and well-known GOP donor, to pay for insurance that violated his religious beliefs.

O’Connor’s ruling applied nationwide, even though the lawsuit only concerned one company.

The administration appealed in April and requested a stay of the nationwide impact of the ruling, arguing the court overstepped its authority by expanding a targeted injunction against a single company to an order that impacts the entire country.

The administration and public health advocates have warned that striking down the requirement for insurers and employers to cover preventive services without cost-sharing would jeopardize access to needed services for more than 150 million people.

"This Court should enter the requested partial stay of the final judgment pending appeal to preserve the status quo of 13 years and to protect the rights of 150 million Americans who are not parties to this case," the administration argued in its most recent court filing.

A separate panel will eventually hear arguments on the merits of the case, but there is no hearing date set.

The groups will likely continue to advocate for the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit to overturn the ruling in a battle that could eventually head to the Supreme Court.

A federal judge ruled on Friday that a Tennessee law banning drag shows in public or in places where children could view them is unconstitutional, finding that it violates freedom of speech protections.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker said in his ruling that the law, which Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed in March, is both “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad.” 

The law says an “adult cabaret performance” is unlawful if it happens on public property or in a location where the performance “could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.” It defines such a performance as one that is harmful to minors and includes topless dancers, “exotic” dancers, strippers and male or female impersonators. 

Parker had issued a preliminary injunction at the end of March to block the law from taking effect. He agreed with Friends of George’s, a Memphis-based theater group that produces drag performances, comedy sketches and plays, that the state's Adult Entertainment Act (AEA) could apply “just about anywhere.”

Friends of George’s argued that the law would violate its free speech and put its members at risk of felony charges over the shows that it has held for years. The group argued that the law is overly broad because it applies to minors of all ages and anywhere that a minor could be. 

Parker agreed with the argument, ruling that the AEA was passed “for the impermissible purpose of chilling constitutionally-protected speech.” 

He ruled that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, but the law is not the least restrictive nor most narrowly tailored way that it could accomplish this without violating free speech. 

The Tennessee law was the first in the country to directly target drag shows. First-time violators of the law could have faced a $2,500 fine and up to a year in prison. 

The Hill has reached out to Shelby County District Attorney Steven Mulroy, which Friends of George’s had sued in the case, for comment.

A Texas federal judge has banned legal filings that are drafted primarily by artificial intelligence (AI) in his court without a person first checking those documents for accuracy. 

U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr ordered that attorneys file a certificate before appearing before the court that either AI platforms did not contribute to any part of a filing or that someone checked any language that it drafted for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases. 

“These platforms are incredibly powerful and have many uses in the law: form divorces, discovery requests, suggested errors in documents, anticipated questions at oral argument," a post on Starr’s page on the Northern District of Texas court website states. "But legal briefing is not one of them."

Starr argued that the AI platforms like ChatGPT and Google’s Bard are “prone to hallucinations and bias.” He said they can make up content like quotes or citations and can only follow the code that they are programmed with instead of upholding the law and ethics. 

“As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth),” he said in the post. “Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle.” 

Any filing from a party that does not submit the certification will be stricken. 

CBS News reported that the order came after a lawyer used ChatGPT to produce a filing in a lawsuit, but the platform made up court cases that did not exist and referenced them in its argument. 

AI platforms have become increasingly popular in recent months with several Big Tech companies vowing to develop their own versions. But some detractors have warned that advancements in AI technology could come at significant cost — such as increasing the spread of propaganda and replacing manual jobs with automated ones. 

A group of AI experts and industry leaders warned in an open letter earlier this week that mitigating the risk of “extinction” from AI should be as much a global priority as preventing pandemics and nuclear war. 

Major technology experts — including Twitter CEO Elon Musk and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak — also called for at least a six-month pause on the development of AI technology in March until society can be sure that it can manage the risks.

A former U.S. informant who pleaded guilty to charges related to the 2021 assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse was sentenced to life in prison on Friday. 

Multiple news outlets reported that 51-year-old Rodolphe Jarr, a dual Haitian-Chilean citizen, is the first to be sentenced from a plot to kill Moïse, who had served as president since 2017. 

Jarr pleaded guilty in March in U.S. federal court in Miami to charges of conspiring to provide material support, providing material support and conspiring to kidnap and kill Moïse. Ten other defendants have been charged in the United States in relation to the assassination, while dozens have been arrested in Haiti. 

U.S. District Judge José Martínez gave Jarr the maximum sentence after a 10-minute hearing, according to The Associated Press. 

Prosecutors have said they believe most of the planning for the assassination happened in South Florida. Those originally involved in the scheme had planned to kidnap Moïse and bring him to an unidentified location by plane, but they could not find a plane or the weapons needed to carry out the plan, according to records.

Officials have alleged that the perpetrators wanted to win contracts under Moïse’s successor. 

Court documents state that Jarr provided weapons, food and lodging for Colombian soldiers and others involved in the plot. He agreed to help federal prosecutors build their case against the other defendants. 

Jarr has the right to appeal the sentence for up to two weeks, and his attorney said he has not decided whether he will appeal, AP reported. 

He was previously convicted of drug trafficking in 2013 and sentenced to more than four years in prison. Jarr was also detained in the Dominican Republic last year for the charges for Moïse’s assassination. 

Moïse was shot 12 times at his home in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince. His death pushed the poverty-stricken country into further turmoil with gangs gaining more territory in a power vacuum. 

The number of killings, rapes and kidnappings have also spiked since then. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Attorneys for former President Trump have not found the classified document he was recorded discussing taking from the White House, CNN reported Friday. 

Two sources told the outlet that the attorneys provided material to the FBI in response to a subpoena in March related to the document Trump discussed, but they did not find the document itself. 

CNN first reported Wednesday that that the Justice Department (DOJ) obtained an audio recording of Trump talking about the document while at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., in July 2021. The document reportedly came from now-outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and discussed a potential U.S. attack on Iran. 

Sources told the outlet that prosecutors were seeking “any and all” documents and materials related to Milley and Iran, including maps and any invasion plans. Prosecutors also sent a similar subpoena to at least one other person who was present at the meeting in Bedminster. 

The sources said prosecutors specifically noted to Trump’s attorneys that they wanted the document Trump described on the audio recording and any classified materials that he might still have. 

The Hill has reached out to a Trump spokesperson for comment. 

The former president brushed off the reports that DOJ had the recording during a town hall with Fox News’s Sean Hannity in Iowa on Thursday. 

“I don’t know anything about it. All I know is this: Everything I did was right,” he said. 

Trump has defended himself in the investigation over the classified and sensitive documents that were found at his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Fla., arguing he had already declassified them all. 

But former Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb said Wednesday that the recording undermines his defenses for a possible case against him, because it shows him recognizing limits on what he was allowed to do with the documents.

A former Republican candidate for state House in New Mexico has been indicted on numerous federal charges over his alleged involvement in a series of drive-by shootings that happened after he lost his election bid. 

The 11-count indictment unsealed on Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico accuses Solomon Peña of organizing a series of four shootings that happened at four Democratic officials’ homes between December and January. 

“SOLOMON PENA ran for the New Mexico House of Representatives and lost by nearly 50 percentage points in November 2022. Refusing to accept his electoral defeat, PENA organized a shooting spree that targeted the homes of four elected officials and their families,” the indictment reads. 

The shootings happened at the homes of two Bernalillo County commissioners, one state senator and the speaker of the state House. 

Peña was originally arrested in January, with Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina saying at the time that he had “masterminded” all the attacks. 

The charges that Peña is facing include conspiracy, interference with federally protected activities and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and possessing a firearm in furtherance of the crime. 

Peña lost his race to incumbent Democrat Miguel Garcia in the state’s 14^th District in November. 

But he tweeted that he “never conceded” and was looking into his options. Authorities have said they believe Peña is an “election denier” and was motivated to hire people to shoot at the officials’ homes, though they believe he carried out at least one shooting himself. 

The indictment charges Peña and two of his alleged accomplices. No one was injured in the attacks, but bullets did pass through the bedroom of the state senator’s 10-year-old daughter. 

U.S. Attorney Alexander Uballez said at a press conference that some of the officials were targeted because of their role in certifying Peña’s defeat in his race. 

“In America, voters pick their leaders and would-be leaders don’t get to pick which voters they heed, which rules apply to them, or which laws to follow,” he said. 

The indictment notes text messages that Peña sent in the days after the election that mark the location of the officials’ homes and allege that rigging occurred in his election. 

Peña also texted an unnamed conspirator that “It is our duty as Statesmen and Patriots, to stop the oligarchs from taking over our country,” according to the indictment. 

Elizabeth Honce, an attorney for Peña, said he maintains his innocence in the case. He was denied bail and ordered to remain in custody pending trial after he was arrested. 

Bernalillo County Commissioner Adriann Barboa (D) told CNN in an interview following Peña’s arrest that she is “grateful” that he was detained. She said she had been playing with her granddaughter just hours before eight rounds were fired into her home on Dec. 4. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder and former CEO of the now-defunct company Theranos, has reported to prison to begin her 11-year sentence for fraud and conspiracy stemming from false claims she made about her company’s technology. 

Holmes turned herself in to a low-security, women’s prison in Bryan, Texas, on Tuesday, more than a year after she was convicted on three felony counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. She received her sentence in November and had been ordered to turn herself in by Tuesday. 

Video from The Recount showed Holmes walking toward the prison to turn herself in. 

Having dropped out from Stanford University at 19 years old, Holmes founded the blood-testing company Theranos and advertised the company to the public and potential investors as having technology that could test patients for a wide range of diseases and conditions with only a few drops of blood from a prick of a finger. 

Holmes’ advertising helped the company bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in investments and high-profile board members like former Cabinet members Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. 

She was at times considered to be the next Steve Jobs, but a series of articles from The Wall Street Journal revealed that the company’s technology did not work. Holmes did not inform investors of the defects with Theranos’ technology. 

Former Theranos executive Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, who had a relationship with Holmes and served as the company’s chief operating officer, was convicted in July of 12 felony charges for defrauding investors and patients based on the false claims about the abilities of the technology. 

Balwani began serving a nearly 13-year prison sentence in Southern California in April. 

Holmes had been living in the San Diego area with the father of her two children, her son and her daughter before she was due to turn herself in. Her son was born in July 2021, a few weeks before her trial began, while her daughter was born in February. 

Holmes has admitted to making mistakes with the company but denied committing any crimes. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The man who allegedly crashed a truck into security barriers near the White House had notes about wanting to end democracy in the United States, a court filing shows. 

Prosecutors said in the Friday filing that the suspect, 19-year-old Sai Varsith Kandula from Chesterfield, Mo., revealed in an interview with Secret Service agents after he was detained that he had a “green book” in which he detailed his thoughts about the attack. 

“As I am familiar with the [unknown] of this country being a democratic nation, and this will no longer be the case," Kandula allegedly wrote. "There shall be consequence if civil unrest happens. To make it clear Any opposition will be met with death penalty to make it clear: (kill president) As you have seen, we will declare martial until the situation has been [unknown]. We will rebuild this world." 

The crash occurred on the north side of Lafyette Square, across from the White House. 

Kandula was arrested on several charges including threatening to kill, kidnap or inflict harm on a president, vice president or member of their family, assault with a dangerous weapon, reckless driving, destruction of federal property and trespassing. 

A Nazi flag and duct tape were found while officials were searching the truck after Kandula was detained. 

Court records previously indicated that Kandula told officials that his goal was to “kill the president” and “seize power” himself. 

The Friday filing states that Kandula said he wanted to “get to the White House, seize power, and be put in charge of the nation.” He said he was willing to “Kill the President if that’s what I have to do and would hurt anyone that would stand in my way” to take over. 

He told investigators that he was planning the attack for six months and considered that his plan was successful because he wanted to send a message to organizations like the Secret Service. He said he knew he was going to be arrested, but his “book” would get to those who needed to see it. 

The filing states that the crash caused more than $1,000 in damage from the impact of the U-Haul truck on the barriers, which needed an engineering inspection and will require repainting and cleanup of fluids that leaked from the truck. 

The federal government issued the filing in support of a motion for Kandula to be held while awaiting trial.

The Supreme Court’s decision season is in full swing.

The justices in the coming weeks will hand down major rulings on student debt relief, affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act, with opinions in 30 remaining cases expected to be released by June 30.  

Here’s a preview of the major decisions.

Student Debt Relief

The fate of President Biden’s student debt relief plan rests with the justices, who are weighing two separate challenges: one from six Republican-led states, the other from two individual borrowers.

At stake is whether more than 40 million Americans will receive debt relief — as well as a major Biden campaign promise.

The plan, currently on hold, would cancel up to $20,000 in loans for Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for other borrowers, if the individual’s income is less than $125,000. The income limit is doubled for married couples.

The conservative-majority court during February’s oral argument cast doubt that the administration had the authority to unilaterally cancel hundreds of billions of dollars worth of student debt.

It’s possible, however, that the court throws out the challenges without reaching the merits. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett during oral argument joined the court’s three liberals in fiercely questioning the challengers on whether they had legal standing to sue in the first place. 

Affirmative Action

Decades of affirmative action programs in college admissions may soon be coming to an end.

The Supreme Court is considering challenges to the admissions policies of both Harvard University’s and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The rulings will have nationwide impacts.

The justices are explicitly being asked to overturn a landmark 2003 decision that allowed race to be considered as one of many factors in college admissions.

Affirmative action survived another challenge before the justices in 2016, but the addition of former President Trump's appointees in the years since has turned the court to the right.

It makes the twin cases now before the justices the greatest threat yet to affirmative action programs; at oral argument, the court signaled skepticism about upholding race-conscious admissions policies.

Voting Rights Act

The justices are poised to decide when states must draw minority-majority districts as the court resolves a dispute involving Alabama’s congressional map.

The opinion could further narrow the Voting Rights Act, a decade after the court disallowed another provision — which controlled which state and local governments were subject to federal preclearance before changing their voting laws — due to being unconstitutional.

In Alabama, state Republicans are asking the justices to reverse a lower ruling that found their map violated Section 2 of the law, which remains in effect.

Alabama’s map includes one majority-Black congressional district out of seven total, despite the group accounting for 27 percent of the state’s population. A three-judge panel ruled the map violated Section 2 by impermissibly packing Black voters into one district and spreading them out throughout others.

The GOP-led state argues their design was race-neutral, and that following the opposing arguments would prioritize race above traditional redistricting principles.

In a 5-4 vote last year, the court temporarily reinstated Alabama’s map as it took up the case. Several conservative justices seemed open to raising the legal bar for Voting Rights Act map challenges, but even if Alabama comes out victorious, it’s unclear exactly how broadly the court will rule. 

American Indian adoptions

The Supreme Court may soon prompt a major shift in how foster care placements and adoptions are handled for thousands of American Indian children.

The justices are hearing a constitutional challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which Congress enacted in 1978 to combat the common practice of separating Native children from their family and tribe.

The ICWA imposes minimum standards for removing Native children and establishes default preferences for their adoption and foster care placements.

Several couples that sought to adopt or foster Native children are suing over the law, contending it institutes racial classifications that violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

They are joined by Texas and a parent whose Native biological child was adopted by one of the couples. The parties further argue that Congress exceeded its authority in enacting the law.

Several tribes and the Biden administration defended the ICWA before the justices, insisting the law’s references to “Indian child” and tribes are political-based distinctions, not race-based ones. 

LGBTQ protections

First came the cake baker. Now comes the website designer.

Various wedding vendors who oppose same-sex marriage and say their products amount to pure speech have challenged public accommodation laws that require them to provide equal services regardless of a customer’s sexual orientation.

Taking up a challenge to Colorado's law, the high court may put its thumb on the scale this term.

In 2018, the court avoided weighing in on the hot-button issue by resolving cake shop owner Jack Phillips’s challenge to Colorado's law on narrow grounds.

A few miles away from Phillips’s shop, website designer Lorie Smith wants to create wedding websites. But Colorado's law would require Smith to offer those services to same-sex couples.

She’s asked the justices to decide the question they never reached five years ago. At oral argument, the court’s conservatives signaled support for Smith.

Independent State Legislature Theory

An appeal from North Carolina Republican state lawmakers may upend legal challenges to congressional maps and other federal election rules. It could also be a dud.

The case involves the so-called “independent state legislature” theory, which contends that the Constitution gives state legislatures near-total authority to regulate federal elections, removing all other state-level bodies from the process.

Following that argument would prevent state courts and state constitutions from hearing claims such as partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting.

Last year, Democratic-majority North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the state’s Republican-drawn congressional map. It prompted the state lawmakers to appeal to the nation’s highest court and argue that the state court had no authority, urging the justices to adopt the theory.

The justices appeared to search for a middle path during oral argument in December. But now, they might not need to reach the merits at all.

After Republicans regained control of the North Carolina Supreme Court in the midterms, the new majority granted a rare rehearing of the case and overturned the earlier decision.

The justices in Washington have since questioned whether they still have authority to move ahead, since they are hearing an appeal of a ruling that effectively no longer exists.

Dismissing the case could also punt the issue to the 2024 election cycle.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are “in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone” in light of the ethical issues that have been raised about the members of the court recently. 

Whitehouse said in an NBC News interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” that establishing an ethics code for the court will not be easy, but Congress has a role to play in administering how the internal ethics of the judiciary are conducted. 

He said instituting an ethics pledge and disclosure demands during the confirmation process for judges is not practical. He said Justice Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself in cases involving the 2020 presidential election despite his wife, Ginni, supporting efforts to overturn the results of the case because the justice maintained that he was not involved and not aware of her activities. 

“That is a question of fact. That's something that could have, and should have, been determined by a neutral examination, and then we'd all know,” Whitehouse said. “And so, the problem with the Supreme Court is that they're in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone.” 

Whitehouse, who serves as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, said the other ethical questions surrounding Thomas recently are based on a law requiring financial disclosure that Congress passed, demonstrating its authority to act. 

Thomas has faced scrutiny in recent months over the gifts he received from a friend and GOP megadonor, Harlan Crow, over multiple years, including luxury trips and tuition for Thomas’ great-nephew to attend private school. Thomas also did not disclose a real estate sale in which Thomas and his family sold his old home to Crow. 

Federal law requires members of the Supreme Court, along with other officials, to disclose most gifts they receive on annual financial disclosure forms, with some exemptions. Thomas has said he did not believe he needed to disclose the trips he received from Crow because they were part of personal hospitality from a friend. 

The revelations have led Democrats to call for an updated ethical code that is easier to enforce to be enacted for the court, while Republicans have been hesitant to support these efforts and mostly defended Thomas’ conduct. 

Whitehouse said Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts should encourage the Judicial Conference, which recommends policy for Congress to pass related to the federal courts, to develop ethics guidelines similar to what is in effect for circuit courts of appeals. 

“It's not as if you have to go off into terra incognita here. They actually know how to do that,” he said.

Two climate change protesters are facing federal charges after they smeared paint on the display case containing a famous sculpture by Edgar Degas at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., last month. 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia said in a release that 53-year-olds Timothy Martin of North Carolina and Joanna Smith of New York were charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and injury to a National Gallery of Art exhibit. Both turned themselves in to authorities. 

The release states that a group called Declare Emergency, which conducts protests to oppose the continued use of fossil fuels, claimed credit for the incident. 

Two protesters were seen smearing red and black paint on the case and pedestal of “Little Dancer Aged Fourteen” by Degas, a prominent 19^th and 20^th century French artist. 

“We need our leaders to take serious action, to tell us the truth about what is happening with the climate,” one protester was heard saying on a video recording of the incident.

The indictment against Martin and Smith alleges that they agreed to enter the gallery for the purpose of damaging the exhibit, armed with plastic water bottles that contained paint. It states that they at times hit the exhibit “with force” with the paint. 

The release states that members of the conspiracy notified The Washington Post of their plans in advance, and two reporters and other uncharged conspirators took a video of the incident. 

The release alleges that Martin and Smith caused $2,400 in damage. 

Each charge they face carries a sentence of up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000, but their sentences if convicted would be based on sentencing guidelines and other factors. 

The exhibit needed to be removed from public display for 10 days for repairs before being made available again, according to the release.

Michael Fanone, a former U.S. Capitol Police officer who sustained injuries during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, said on Thursday that the recent talks of pardoning individuals who were sentenced for their roles in the insurrection “should outrage all Americans.” 

During an appearance on CNN’s “News Central,” co-anchor Boris Sanchez asked Fanone for his thoughts on the sentencing of Stewart Rhodes — the founder of the far-right group the Oath Keepers — and comments that former President Trump made about potential pardons if elected for the White House in 2024.

“I mean, it’s outrageous. It should outrage all Americans,” Fanone, who currently serves as a law enforcement analyst for the network, responded. “You know, Stewart Rhodes was convicted by a jury of his peers for his actions, which resulted in the injuries sustained by myself and hundreds of other police officers on Jan. 6."

"Not to mention the fact that America became a national and international embarrassment on the world stage," he added.

A federal judge on Thursday sentenced Rhodes, 58, to serve an 18-year prison sentence following his conviction on seditious conspiracy charges for his role in the Capitol riot. The sentence represents the longest assigned to a figure involved in the riot thus far.

Fanone also noted that he finds it “sickening” that Trump is still aligning himself with people like Rhodes, citing the statements he made during a CNN town hall earlier this month. 

“It's sickening that the former president would have aligned himself with individuals like this in the statements that he made in his town hall and continues to make on a daily basis,” Fanone said.

Trump, who announced his third presidential campaign last November, has expressed interest in pardoning those who were charged for their roles in the insurrection.

“It’s a disgrace what they’ve done to them. What they’ve done to these people is disgraceful,” the former president said at the time.

Fanone's remarks come as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who announced his presidential campaign on Wednesday, also claimed that he would consider pardons for all Jan. 6 defendants if elected, including Trump.

“On day one, I will have folks that will get together and look at all these cases, who people are victims of weaponization or political targeting, and we will be aggressive in issuing pardons,” DeSantis said on “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” podcast.

“I would say any example of disfavored treatment based on politics, or weaponization would be included in that review, no matter how small or how big," he added.

Jacob Chansley, a rioter who stormed the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and became known as the “QAnon Shaman,” was released from a halfway house on Thursday, ending his time in custody. 

Chansley’s attorney, Albert Watkins, said in a statement that he is “now appropriately free to continue in his peaceful quest to heal.” Watkins said Chansley worked during his sentence to take advantage of the opportunities that his plea deal provided to reduce the time that he needed to serve in prison. 

“The Court and Bureau of Prisons recognized this effort. I sincerely wish Jake the absolute best as he moves forward with his life,” Watkins said. 

Chansley’s release was expected on Thursday after he was released from federal prison and transferred to the halfway house in late March. The Bureau of Prisons had listed Chansley’s release date as May 25. 

Chansley gained attention as the so-called “QAnon Shaman” for the face paint and headdress he wore during the Jan. 6 attack. He pleaded guilty to a felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding in September 2021 in a plea deal that allowed for the dismissal of five other charges against him.

He was sentenced to 41 months in prison in November of that year, but he was sent to the halway house about a year and a half later. Inmates can have their sentences reduced for good behavior while in prison. 

“Jake is remarkably intelligent, peaceful to his core and a gentle young man with a very bright future. We can all learn a great deal from this young man,” Watkins said. 

The Hill has reached out to the Bureau of Prisons for comment.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday said the Supreme Court is “continuing to look” at its ethical standards in the wake of recent controversies.

"On a final issue of concern inside the court, I want to assure people that I am committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct,” Roberts said during the American Law Institute's annual dinner.

“We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment, and I am confident there are ways to do that that are consistent with our status as an independent branch of government, under the Constitution’s separation of powers," he added.

Democratic lawmakers have renewed their calls for the justices to adopt a binding code of ethics, like the one in place for other federal judges, after a series of ProPublica reports revealed undisclosed luxury trips that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow. Several other justices have also come under scrutiny for ethical lapses.

Roberts last month declined to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the concerns, and the chief justice has previously questioned Congress’ constitutional authority to institute such a binding ethics code. Roberts also released a new statement of ethical principles signed by all nine justices.

Republicans, meanwhile, have protested Democrats' criticism as a way to tear down the conservative-majority court.

Roberts made the comments while accepting the American Law Institute’s Henry J. Friendly Medal, named in honor of the late federal appeals court judge. Justice Elena Kagan presented Roberts with the award.

One of Friendly’s former law clerks, Roberts told the crowd of roughly 400 gathered at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., that they were the largest audience he had spoken in front of since the pandemic.

The chief justice paid tribute to his former boss but suggested Friendly would find recent events “deeply disappointing,” going on to reference a judge who was recently heckled at a college campus and protests at the Supreme Court justices' homes last summer ahead of the court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization abortion case.

The court put up eight-foot-tall fencing in the spring of 2022 in response to protests over a draft decision indicating judges were ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade. The fence was replaced with small barriers later that fall.

Roberts said the hardest decision he made was not any case that came before him as a judge.

“None of those,” Roberts said. “The hardest decision I had to make was whether to erect fences and barricades around the Supreme Court. I had no choice but to go ahead and do it.”

The depth and breadth of the looming legal problems facing former President Trump are on full display this week after a rapid series of developments in various cases.

In the past few days alone, one of Trump’s top lawyers departed, citing internal friction, the special counsel has intensified his investigation into the former president's conduct and writer E. Jean Carroll has filed for more damages after Trump mocked her sexual assault allegations at a CNN town hall.

Meanwhile, a New York judge called a hearing Tuesday to reiterate to Trump that rules surrounding his hush money prosecution bar him from using evidence in the case to attack any witnesses.

The specter of legal trouble is nothing new for Trump. Jack Smith, a Justice Department special counsel, is investigating his handling of classified information and his efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election. A Georgia prosecutor is probing attempts to overturn the state’s election results in 2020.

Trump was indicted earlier this year on charges related to an alleged hush money scheme to keep an affair quiet during the 2016 campaign, and he was recently found liable for defamation and sexual abuse of Carroll.

But the latest developments come as the 2024 GOP primary field takes shape, with Trump’s chief rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), set to enter the race this week, just days after Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) jumped in the contest Monday. 

The steady stream of news began in recent days when Timothy Parlatore, one of Trump’s attorneys handling the document case, resigned and went public with some of his concerns about the influence of some in the former president’s inner circle.

“It had nothing to do with the case itself or the client,” Parlatore told CNN’s Paula Reid.

“The real reason is because there are certain individuals that made defending the president much harder than it needed to be. In particular, there is one individual who works for him, Boris Epshteyn, who had really done everything he could to try to block us — to prevent us from doing what we could to defend the president.”

Parlatore said Epshteyn “served as kind of a filter to prevent us from getting information to the client. … In my opinion, he was not very honest with us or with the client on certain things.”

That includes major events in the case, including subsequent searches of Trump properties to assure there were no remaining classified records on the premises. 

“There were certain things, like the searches, that he attempted to interfere with,” Parlatore said.

Smith’s case against Trump, especially on the Mar-a-Lago front, appears to be accelerating. 

Parlatore told The Hill last week that Smith appeared to be wrapping up his presentation to the grand jury assembled in the case.

“I think that they’re just about done with all the grand jury witnesses at this point. And moving into the report writing phase,” he said. 

“I think that they’re going to spend the next month writing up a several-hundred-page report …and present it to [Attorney General Merrick Garland in the] beginning of June.”

The investigation has expanded to also include some of the Trump organization's business dealings while the former president was still in office. 

Smith issued a subpoena for records of business deals that former President Trump’s company made with seven countries since he took office in 2017: China, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis signaled in recent days that charges in her investigation could come in early August. That case is focused on a “fake electors” scheme hatched by Trump allies after the 2020 election.

As those investigations play out, others are already expected to follow him into presidential primary season next spring. 

Attorneys for Carroll on Monday amended a complaint to seek additional damages from Trump after he called her a “whack job” and mocked her allegation that he raped her in an encounter in the 1990s. He made the comments during a CNN town hall earlier this month, the day after a jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The civil case will likely loom over the former president for months to come.

A Manhattan judge Tuesday tentatively set the trial date for Trump’s hush money case for March 2024, which would be right in the thick of primary voting. 

Also in that case, Justice Juan Merchan agreed to a request from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) to schedule a Tuesday hearing reviewing the limitations on how the former president may use the evidence he has access to during the trial.

Merchan has said Trump will remain free to speak about the “vast majority of the evidence” but that he may not directly post evidence to social media nor reveal information about witnesses involved in the case. He is also only allowed to review evidence in the presence of his attorneys.

Trump lashed out at the decision Tuesday.

“Just had New York County Supreme Court hearing where I believe my First Amendment Rights, “Freedom of Speech,” have been violated, and they forced upon us a trial date of March 25th, right in the middle of Primary season. Very unfair, but this is exactly what the Radical Left Democrats wanted. It’s called ELECTION INTERFERENCE, and nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before!!!” Trump wrote in a post on his social media site.

So far, the myriad controversies have yet to seriously harm Trump politically in the GOP race.

The former president’s polling lead has expanded since he was indicted last month in the hush money case, and his team of advisers believe he benefited from the CNN town hall, despite the potential legal implications of his comments about Carroll and classified documents he’d taken with him to his Mar-a-Lago estate.

A RealClearPolitics average of recent GOP primary polls shows Trump with a comfortable 37-percentage-point lead over DeSantis, who is polling in second place in most surveys.

“Great Poll Numbers, but the Communists are after me. Can’t let them succeed. MAGA!” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week.

The Senate Democrats’ campaign arm has sued West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R), who is running to unseat Sen. Joe Manchin (D), for records related to his schedule after multiple requests for it. 

The lawsuit from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) filed on Tuesday, which was first reported by Punchbowl News, states that Justice has refused to “produce the most basic records” from his time as governor — a list of official meetings for him and his senior staff. 

Diana Astiz, the research director for the DSCC, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last month for copies of all scheduled official meetings that Justice, his chief of staff, his deputy chief of staff and his general counsel have had since January 2017, when the governor took office. 

But the lawsuit states that Justice’s office completely denied the request a week later, saying that it had located the documents requested but would not release them. It said the office cited exemptions to the state’s FOIA law that the DSCC believes do not apply. 

The lawsuit states that a records request in 2019 revealed that Justice “almost never” met with members of his Cabinet, is rarely present at the state capitol and mostly missed one of the “most critical” points of the year’s legislative session. 

“The Governor may understandably desire to avoid another round of similar criticism, but he is the chief executive of the State and has the duty to ensure that its laws are faithfully executed,” the lawsuit states. “His Office’s refusal to produce the records sought is an open violation of FOIA.” 

DSCC previously announced last week that it intended to sue after Justice’s general counsel blocked two FOIA requests. 

“Jim Justice cannot hide his work schedule — or lack thereof — from West Virginians, and this is an area which is sure to receive further scrutiny in his nasty primary and in a court of law,” DSCC spokesperson David Bergstein said in a release. 

The lawsuit comes as Justice is candidate for Senate, and the seat could be a prime pickup opportunity for Republicans in 2024. 

Manchin has not announced if he will run for another term. 

Roman Stauffer, campaign manager for Justice, slammed the lawsuit in a statement as politically motivated, saying that Democrats want to help Justice’s primary opponent, Rep. Alex Mooney (R), because they believe he would be easier for Manchin to defeat. 

“Governor Jim Justice is the frontrunner in this campaign for U.S. Senate, and the polling shows that he beats every other candidate,” Stauffer said. “Chuck Schumer and the Democrats are panicking and will do everything they can to prop up Alex Mooney, whom they know they can easily beat in the General Election."

Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake's last legal challenge of her loss in the state’s 2022 governor’s race has been dismissed. 

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson ruled that Lake did not prove that Maricopa County did not verify signatures on mail-in ballots as law requires. Lake refused to concede after Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) was declared the winner in their race, defeating the Republican nominee by about 17,000 votes, and launched multiple legal challenges that had already been mostly dismissed. 

The Arizona Supreme Court had revived one challenge that Lake made to the mail-in ballots in Maricopa, the largest county in the state that makes up more than 60 percent of its voters. 

Lake’s attorneys argued during a three-day trial last week that evidence showed lower-level screeners who found discrepancies with voters’ signatures mentioned them to their superiors but were ignored. 

Lake needed to prove that the signature verification process was flawed and that it caused the outcome of the race to change, but Thompson found that the bar was not met. 

“The evidence the Court received does not support Plaintiff’s remaining claim,” he said in the ruling. 

Lake previously argued that defective printers in Maricopa County caused some voters to not be able to vote because their ballots were unreadable by tabulator machines. County officials had said more sophisticated counters at election headquarters tabulated the ballots that were affected by the printers, and everyone who wished to vote was able to. 

The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in February that Lake had not presented any evidence that those whose ballots were unreadable at the polling locations were unable to vote. 

Lake’s legal team was fined $2,000 earlier this month for making false statements about voter fraud occurring in the county. 

The Hill has reached out to Lake’s campaign for comment. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court’s decision to dodge weighing in on a controversial liability shield for internet companies has punted the issue back to Congress.

Expectations had run high that the justices would be the ones to significantly narrow the provision, known as Section 230, when the court agreed to directly take up the question of how far its protections reached.

But the court resolved the cases against Twitter and Google on other grounds Thursday, leaving Section 230 unscathed until Congress acts or the high court takes up another case. And despite bipartisan criticism that the provision makes the tech industry unaccountable, lawmakers face a stalemate on how to reform it. 

So, barring a surprising legislative compromise, Section 230 is here to stay, and internet companies are breathing a sigh of relief.

“The court went to great lengths — and really discussed Section 230 — to avoid putting its finger on the scales on either side when it comes to Section 230 itself,” said Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at NetChoice.

“And I think that I am hoping that other courts recognize that and see that it is not the role of the judicial branch to write laws. If 230 is to be adjusted, it should be done at the legislative branch. And what I'm hoping is that lawmakers simultaneously recognize the decision that came out of here,” he continued.

Passed as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress enacted Section 230 to encourage the emerging internet industry to take down harmful posts on their platforms while protecting them from a deluge of lawsuits for third-party content.

As technology behind the modern internet advanced and the industry rapidly changed, calls for reform have grown on both sides of the aisle.

Democrats broadly argue that the provision allows tech companies to host too much misinformation and hate speech without facing consequence, whereas Republicans argue the provision gives tech companies the ability to moderate content in a way the GOP alleges is done with an anti-conservative bias. 

Those opposite viewpoints, however, have created a legislative stalemate.

And even after the court’s punt, it seems unlikely that Congress will reach a compromise.

In fact, lawmakers from both parties doubled down on their calls in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) urged the passing of several online child safety bills, saying Congress “must step in” after the court “passed on their chance to clarify that Section 230 is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for online platforms when they cause harm.” 

“Enough is enough. Big Tech has woefully failed to regulate itself," Durbin said in a statement. 

Except for a carveout lawmakers passed in 2018 that makes it easier to take legal action against websites for enabling sex trafficking, Section 230 remains largely unchanged more than a quarter-century after Congress passed it.

Internet companies have fought against various proposed changes.

After the Supreme Court agreed in October to directly take up the question of Section 230’s scope — specifically, how it applied to platforms’ algorithmic content recommendations —Yelp, Wikipedia and Indeed were among the many companies filing briefs warning that narrowing its protections would upend the building blocks of the modern internet.

In the end, the justices didn’t weigh in on Section 230, instead ruling the companies being sued weren’t liable in the first place and didn’t need any protection.

Two families of ISIS terrorist attack victims had accused social media giants of aiding and abetting the terrorist group. The relatives argued the companies did not do enough to stop the terrorist group from taking advantage of platforms’ recommendation algorithms to recruit.  

The court unanimously ruled the aiding and abetting law required showing a greater nexus between the platforms and the terrorist attacks in question. Whether the companies — Twitter, Facebook and Google — could invoke Section 230’s protections became irrelevant.

Writing for the unanimous majority was Justice Clarence Thomas, who has publicly expressed the most skepticism among his colleagues about Section 230’s reach. 

Groups that represent industry players cast the decision as a win for free speech online and protecting companies’ ability to serve users. 

Michael Cheah, general counsel at internet.works, said the outcome shows that sympathetic plaintiffs don’t always have the right to sue internet companies, even without Section 230. 

“I think what this case helps illustrate is that just carving out Section 230 doesn't do that, because at the end of the day, [if] you're suing someone for real-world-based harm based on third-party content, it's going to be very hard to sue them,” Cheah said.

Prior to Thursday’s decision, several justices signaled they came to view the dispute as a bad vehicle for resolving the battle over Section 230. 

As the oral argument fell into thorny debate over YouTube thumbnails and the particulars of the algorithms in question, the justices repeatedly expressed confusion.

“These are not, like, the nine greatest experts on the internet,” Justice Elena Kagan joked at one point, eliciting laughter in the courtroom.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Thomas’s opinion, wrote separately to stress the outcome was a narrow resolution.

“Other cases presenting different allegations and different records may lead to different conclusions,” Jackson wrote.