A federal judge in Louisiana on Friday temporarily stopped the Biden administration from ending Title 42, the Trump-era border management policy that allowed officials to quickly expel foreign nationals at the border under pandemic conditions.

The policy was due to end Monday as part of the Biden administration's efforts to restructure border and immigration policy after the Trump administration's overhaul of the system.

U.S. District Court Robert Summerhays granted a nationwide preliminary injunction to a group of GOP state attorneys general challenging the policy change. Summerhays, who was appointed by former President Trump, ruled that the Biden administration cannot roll back the policy while the broader legal challenge plays out in court.

“The Court agrees with the Plaintiff States that a nation-wide injunction is necessary for complete relief given the ability of immigrants crossing the border to move freely from one state to another,” the judge wrote in his 47-page decision. “A preliminary injunction limited to the Plaintiff States will likely do nothing more than shift border crossings from the Plaintiff States to states not covered by the preliminary injunction.”

Summerhays ruled that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) improperly circumvented a process to allow for public input before issuing an order to terminate the program.

“The Plaintiff States have demonstrated harm that will result from the Termination Order and that, despite the impact of the order on the states, they were not able to protect their interest by participating in the notice-and-comment process,” the judge wrote.

That ruling reflects the tenor of rulings against the Trump administration's immigration initiatives – notably the terminations of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations – issued after lawsuits by blue states against the federal government.

The injunction is a political victory for the GOP states that brought suit, but it could also help the Biden administration ease pressure on immigration, as high numbers of crossings are expected to continue throughout the summer.

Most border and immigration experts do not believe that Title 42 in itself was an effective border management tool, and its effectiveness as a public health policy was broadly questioned from the policy's inception.

Still, Title 42 took on new life as the left called on the Biden administration to rescind the policy and the right uplifted the policy as a proxy for a Trumpist vision of border control.

Friday's ruling by Summerhays was widely expected, and will likely maintain Title 42 in place until well after November's midterm elections.

While that action alone is unlikely to be enough to redraw the battle lines on one of the election's core issues, it will give the Biden administration some leeway to enforce Title 42 selectively without the option to fully lift the policy.

Over the policy's two-year lifespan, more than half of which has been managed by the Biden administration, the policy has been primarily used to quickly expel Mexican, Guatemalan, Honduran, Salvadorean and Ecuadorian single men.

In 2020, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from using the policy to expel unaccompanied children, and the Biden administration has been reducing its usage against family units, after initially taking a more aggressive approach in early 2021.

The Biden administration also exempted Ukrainians from Title 42, allowing more than 20,000 migrants from the war-torn nation to apply for asylum in April.

This story was updated at 5:46 p.m.

NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Trump has paid the $110,000 in fines he racked up after being held in contempt of court for being slow to respond to a civil subpoena issued by New York’s attorney general.

Trump paid the fine Thursday but must still submit additional paperwork in order to have the contempt order lifted, the office of Attorney General Letitia James said Friday.

A message seeking comment was left Friday with Trump’s lawyer.

A Manhattan judge declared Trump in contempt of court on April 25 and fined him $10,000 per day for not complying with a subpoena in James’s long-running investigation into his business practices.

Judge Arthur Engoron agreed May 11 to lift the contempt order if, by Friday, Trump paid the fines and submitted affidavits detailing efforts to search for the subpoenaed records and explaining his and his company’s document retention policies.

Engoron also required a company hired by Trump to aid in the search, HaystackID, finish going through 17 boxes kept in off-site storage, and for that company to report its findings and turn over any relevant documents. That process was completed Thursday, James's office said.

Engoron told Trump to pay the money directly to James’s office and for the attorney general to hold the money in an escrow account while Trump’s legal team appeals the judge's original contempt finding.

Engoron stopped the fine from accruing May 6, when Trump’s lawyers submitted 66 pages of court documents detailing the efforts by him and his lawyers to locate the subpoenaed records. He warned that he could reinstate it, retroactive to May 7, if his conditions weren't met.

James, a Democrat, has said her three-year investigation uncovered evidence that Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, misstated the value of assets like skyscrapers and golf courses on financial statements for more than a decade.

Trump, a Republican, denies the allegations. He has called James’s investigation “racist” and a politically motivated “witch hunt.” James is Black. Trump’s lawyers have accused her of selective prosecution. Trump is also suing James in federal court, seeking to shut down her probe.

Last week, a lawyer for James's office that evidence found in the probe could support legal action against the former president, his company, or both.

The lawyer, Andrew Amer, said at a hearing in Trump’s lawsuit against James that “there’s clearly been a substantial amount of evidence amassed that could support the filing of an enforcement proceeding,” although a final determination on filing such an action has not been made.

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, urged Arizona lawmakers to intervene after former President Trump’s 2020 electoral defeat in the state, pressing them to set aside Joe Biden’s slate of electors and put forth “a clean slate of Electors,” according to The Washington Post.

The newly revealed communications came in emails Thomas sent on Nov. 9, 2020 — six days after the election — to a pair of lawmakers, pressing them to work on Trump’s behalf and “fight back against fraud,” according to the Post.

The explosive revelation adds a new layer of detail to previous reporting on Ginni Thomas’s efforts in the weeks after the 2020 election. The Post previously reported that she strategized with Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows over how to bypass the will of American voters to install Trump for a second White House term despite his loss to Biden, an outcome she described as an “obvious fraud” and “the greatest heist of our history.”

The correspondence is likely to reignite ethical questions over Clarence Thomas, who has participated in at least nine rulings related to the 2020 election and who in three decades on the bench has never recused himself due to a real or perceived conflict of interest resulting from his wife’s political activities.

Neither Ginni Thomas nor a spokesperson for the Supreme Court immediately responded to requests for comment.

Developing

A U.S. district judge ordered MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to pay some of voting machine company Smartmatic’s costs and fees, saying in a ruling on Thursday that some of Lindell’s claims against Smartmatic fall “on the frivolous side of the line.”

“The Court agrees with Smartmatic that Lindell has asserted at least some groundless claims,” U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols wrote in his ruling. 

“In particular, the Court concludes that at the very least Lindell’s claim against Smartmatic under the Support or Advocacy Clause falls on the frivolous side of the line (other claims do too). As a result, the Court orders Lindell and his previous counsel to pay some of the fees and costs Smartmatic has incurred defending itself and moving for sanctions,” he added.

Nichols also granted motions from Smartmatic, Dominion Voting Systems and Hamilton Place to dismiss the lawsuits against them.

“Whatever the judge thinks, that’s his opinion,” Lindell told Bloomberg News in a phone call. “I’ve got lawyers doing more important things like removing these machines from every state.”

He told the news outlet he would make a decision over whether he would appeal the ruling later.

The Hill has reached out to an attorney for Lindell for comment. 

The development comes as Smartmatic sued Lindell, an ally of former President Trump, earlier this year, alleging that the MyPillow executive lied about the voting machine company regarding the 2020 election.

“Mr. Lindell’s message was as dangerous as it was factually inaccurate. Mr. Lindell told people that Smartmatic stole the 2020 U.S. election. He told people that Smartmatic’s election technology, hardware, and software were hacked by China and other foreign countries,” according to Smartmatic’s lawsuit. 

“He told people that Smartmatic election technology, hardware, and software were developed for the sole purpose of stealing foreign elections by switching votes. And he told people that Smartmatic deployed its election technology, hardware, and software to do just that in the 2020 U.S. election. All lies.”

Lindell, who also faces a lawsuit from Dominion, sued both companies for defamation. Those cases have both been dismissed. 

Battles to control state courts and offices are quickly gaining greater focus with the Supreme Court appearing poised to overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights.

Roe’s impending demise has already raised the stakes for some down ballot races, with state court judges and attorneys general expected to take on expanded roles in the fight over abortion access if the Supreme Court eliminates the federal right in coming weeks. 

Battles for some of those offices have already grown more heated in the last decade, but they are expected to gain further attention as bitter battles over abortion rights take place across the country.

“In states where judges are elected, state supreme court elections have long flown under the radar, and at least attracted much less attention than elections for governor or U.S. Senate,” said Douglas Keith, counsel at the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. “But all of that may be poised to change if these courts increasingly have the final word on high-profile legal questions.”

A leaked draft opinion striking down Roe, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and reportedly backed by at least four other conservative justices, would strip away the constitutional right to abortion, leaving regulatory authority with the states. 

Abortion rights advocates incensed at the draft opinion also fumed over the Biden administration’s seeming lack of preparation for such a scenario, despite widespread consensus about Roe’s jeopardized status under the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. And a failed bid by Senate Democrats last week on long-shot legislation to codify Roe’s protections seemed to further underscore the absence of a federal backstop if the ruling is struck down.

The Supreme Court confirmed the authenticity of the draft opinion, published by Politico on May 2, while cautioning that the ruling’s contents and the justices’ votes were subject to change prior to the publication of a final decision. 

But if the draft opinion becomes law, changes to abortion access in some states would be swift and, in some cases, drastic. The case under review, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, concerns Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban that directly challenges Roe’s prohibition on banning abortion before fetal viability, around 24 weeks. 

According to the abortion rights advocacy group Guttmacher Institute, 26 states would be certain to attempt to ban abortion as quickly as possible. Among those, 13 have trigger laws already in place, designed to take effect automatically or by quick state action if Roe no longer applies. 

If Roe is overturned, court watchers say, the battle would then turn to state constitutions and state courthouses, arenas which have been largely eclipsed by the existence of a federal constitutional right to abortion that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court since 1973. 

“With the Supreme Court on the verge of taking the entire federal judiciary out of the business of protecting reproductive rights, most of the important legal brawls will occur in state courts and state houses,” said Robert Tsai, a law professor at Boston University.

In some states, the leaked draft has generated legislative momentum on both sides of the aisle over the issue of abortion access, with conservatives pushing to stiffen restrictions and liberals seeking to bolster protections in anticipation of Roe’s possible undoing.  

Republican officials in at least eight states have called for legislative sessions to consider new limits on abortion since Alito’s draft opinion was made public earlier this month, according to the polling and research firm Pew.

Meanwhile, some Democratic-controlled legislatures have moved in the opposite direction.

“States like Connecticut and California are drafting laws to protect providers performing legal abortions in their states and to protect and support patients that travel to their states,” said Rachel Rebouché, a law professor at Temple University School of Law. “Those measures will become increasing important if states, like Missouri, attempt to enforce anti-abortion policies across state lines.” 

In addition to legislation, new attention is likely to be paid to state constitutions, a source of legal authority that has been largely overlooked since the 1973 decision in Roe. 

A number of top state courts have interpreted the state constitution as enshrining a right to abortion. These include Kansas (2019), Iowa (2018), Montana (1999), Alaska (1997) and Florida (1989). If Roe is struck down in coming weeks, citizens of those states would still retain a right to abortion, and experts expect advocates in other states to adopt this strategy.

A Michigan judge on Tuesday agreed to temporarily halt a 1931 criminal ban on abortion that would become enforceable if Roe fell. The judge also said there was “a strong likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of their constitutional challenge.”

But as advocates seek to enshrine state constitutional protections, efforts by abortion opponents are also underway in at least two of those states to have their state supreme court’s interpretation struck down. 

In Montana, for instance, the state’s Republican attorney general has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn its 23-year-old decision that held that the state constitution’s privacy protections encompass abortion — a ruling some advocates refer to as “Montana’s Roe v. Wade.”

As a sign of just how critical the attorney general role could be in a post-Roe world, the Democratic Attorneys General Association, in a memo written after the Supreme Court leak, said it would spend up to $30 million on candidates who would protect abortion rights.

In Kansas, a ballot initiative would effectively overrule its top court’s ruling by amending the state constitution. The Kansas Supreme Court’s recognition in 2019 of a state-constitutional right to abortion is also likely to figure as a flashpoint in the midterm elections, when a majority of its justices are up for election.  

“It is hard to overstate how important state courts and state constitutions are about to be,” said Keith, of the Brennan Center. “If, as the Dobbs draft suggests, the U.S. Supreme Court is abdicating its responsibility to protect constitutional rights like abortion access, people are going to look to other courts and other bodies of law to step in.”

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a federal law limiting the amount of money a candidate can collect from donors to repay loans they’ve made to their own campaign, a decision that advocates warned would lead to new opportunities for legalized bribery.

The ruling is yet another blow to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), better known as McCain-Feingold, the most ambitious — and most-litigated — overhaul to the rules that govern campaign finance since Watergate.

The most recent opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the high court’s five other conservatives, leaves only a handful of provisions from the law intact.

“There’s been a significant number of cases that have whittled away at the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002,” said Tara Malloy, senior director of appellate litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center. Malloy said the law had suffered “death by 1,000 cuts.”

Legal challenges to the measure sponsored by then-Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) began almost immediately after President George W. Bush signed the bill in 2002. And from that beginning, the Supreme Court began chipping away at the measure’s provisions.

In 2003, the high court upheld much of the law in the face of a challenge led by now-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), though one provision — banning political contributions from minors — was struck down by the court’s then-five-justice conservative majority. 

Four years later, Roberts issued his first opinion on the bill, striking down limits on the amount of money corporations and labor unions could spend on advertising mentioning particular candidates within 60 days of a general election.

Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion in 2008 striking down BCRA’s so-called millionaire’s amendment, which allowed candidates running against wealthy self-funders to raise more money from individual donors.

By the time that opinion was issued, the most significant challenge to McCain-Feingold was already making its way through the courts. In 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC); the following year, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by four conservative justices, ruled the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on independent expenditures in federal campaigns.

That decision led to the rise of the super PAC, outside groups that may raise and spend unlimited money for and against their chosen candidates. In the decade after that ruling, those groups raised about $10.6 billion on American elections, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics; ahead of this year’s midterms, those groups have raised another $1.1 billion.

Four years after Citizens United, Roberts again authored an opinion striking down limits on the total amount of money any one individual could contribute to a candidate, a provision in tally approved in post-Watergate reforms and revised by BCRA. The court ruled that Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, could donate more than the $117,000 aggregate limit to candidates.

Along the way, the high court has removed other barriers imposed by the bill, allowing political parties to raise money to pay for their physical buildings and recounts and allowing candidates to appear at a fundraising event for a super PAC without soliciting funds themselves.

The latest case, Cruz v. FEC, targeted another part of the law that limited how much donor money candidates could use to repay their own loans. The case stemmed from Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) 2018 re-election bid, when he loaned his campaign $260,000 — $10,000 more than he would have been eligible to recoup. Cruz said he made the loan knowing it would give him standing to challenge the law.

The three liberal justices, in a dissent authored by Justice Elena Kagan, said the decision would allow donors to give to a candidate after an election had passed, knowing the outcome and raising the prospects for corruption.

“In striking down the law today, the court green lights all the sordid margins Congress thought right to stop,” Kagan wrote. “It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption.”

Election law experts say the common through line in the decisions striking down elements of McCain-Feingold is Roberts, initially nominated to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor before Bush renominated him to fill the chief justice’s seat after the death of William Rehnquist.

“The Chief Justice’s opinion for the Court does underscore that the Roberts Court remains highly skeptical of restrictions on campaign financing,” said Robert Kelner, a Republican election law expert at Covington & Burling. “All signs point toward further cases chipping away at the edifice of current campaign finance law.”

The elements of McCain-Feingold that remain in effect mostly relate to political parties. They are not permitted to raise soft money. Candidates, too, must stand by their ads — a provision that requires a candidate to identify themselves and take responsibility for an advertisement they pay to air.

“The courts have consistently proven less solicitous of officeholder, candidate and party rights than of those who stand outside the parties and candidates,” said Brian Svoboda, a Democratic election law expert who analyzed the remnants of the bill in a Twitter thread Monday.

Campaign finance proponents took some heart Monday in Roberts’s opinion, which they said did not go as far as McCain-Feingold opponents had hoped. A friend-of-the-court brief filed by McConnell, authored by former Trump White House counsel and ex-FEC Chairman Don McGahn, sought to strike down the entire remaining portions of the law.

“The possible silver lining is that the Supreme Court focused pretty narrowly on this particular concept,” Malloy said. “There was some much-needed restraint to the approach that the court took to this law.”

A lawsuit filed by a group of Wisconsin residents on Tuesday takes aim at the Trump backers who claimed to represent the state's valid slate of 2020 presidential electors, despite Joe Biden’s victory there.

The first-of-its-kind litigation seeks to hold accountable a dozen named defendants who it accuses of perpetrating a fraudulent scheme to undermine democracy by attempting to bypass the will of Wisconsin voters — and to deter similar efforts in the future.

“This is not how we do elections in the United States,” said Mary McCord, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University, one of the public interest groups backing the lawsuit. “When your candidate loses, you don’t get to just go and vote and submit your ballots as though your candidate won.”

The 55-page complaint, filed in state court by a group of Wisconsin citizens that includes two democratically chosen electors for Biden, claims the alleged electoral scheme ran afoul of Wisconsin and federal law even though it was unsuccessful. The plaintiffs are seeking a ruling declaring that defendants illegally usurped the role of Wisconsin’s 10 electors for Biden and undermined voters’ legal authority to elect the candidate of their choosing.

The defendants in the case comprise 10 allegedly fraudulent pro-Trump electors and two attorneys who helped coordinate their efforts.

“The individuals named in this case schemed to hijack Wisconsin’s role in selecting the president of the United States and to override the will of the voters,” Jeff Mandell, president and lead counsel at Law Forward, another public interest group backing the suit, said in a statement. “We must hold them accountable for their illegal, unprecedented, and profoundly anti-democratic actions.”

The plan to substitute slates of pro-Trump electors from key battleground states where Trump lost fell apart on Jan. 6, 2021, when then-Vice President Mike Pence declined to reject Biden’s valid electors.

The Department of Justice and the House panel probing the Jan. 6 attack have both said they are looking into the circumstances surrounding the bid to put forth Trump electors from states won by Biden.

An attorney defending Michael Sussmann, the lawyer with deep ties to the Democratic Party charged with lying to the FBI in 2016, called the prosecution by the Trump-era special counsel John Durham an "injustice" on the first day of arguments in Sussmann's trial Tuesday.

Michael Bosworth, a member of Sussmann's defense team, argued in his opening statement that his client had no reason to lie about who his clients were when he met with the FBI's top lawyer in 2016.

Sussman met with the FBI to present data that appeared to show suspicious internet traffic connecting former President Trump's business with the Russian financial institution Alfa Bank.

Bosworth portrayed Sussmann as a veteran federal prosecutor and cybersecurity lawyer whose reputation as a partner at the major law firm Perkins Coie depended on the relationships he had established at the FBI and other agencies in the national security establishment.

"Michael Sussmann didn't lie to the FBI," he said. "Michael Sussmann wouldn't lie to the FBI."

"His whole livelihood depended on his credibility with these agencies and he'd never throw that away."

Bosworth added, "As jurors you have the extraordinary responsibility … to prevent injustice. This case is an injustice."

Sussmann was indicted last year with a single count of making a false statement to the FBI in a September 2016 meeting with James Baker, then the bureau's general counsel. Durham, who was tapped by the Trump administration to investigate the origins of the FBI's investigation into Trump's 2016 campaign, alleges that Sussmann falsely told Baker that he was not participating in the meeting on behalf of any client. However, he was representing the Hillary Clinton campaign and a cybersecurity researcher named Rodney Joffe.

Deborah Shaw, a federal prosecutor in Durham's office, said in her own opening arguments on Tuesday that Sussmann intentionally concealed his clients during the meeting with Baker to further a Clinton campaign scheme to orchestrate an October surprise to damage Trump's election chances.

"This was not a mistake or a slip of the tongue, it was a concerted effort to conceal his clients," Shaw told the jury. "You're going to see … how it misled officials into thinking he was acting as a good citizen."

"The FBI should never be used as a political pawn," she added.

During the two-week trial, the jury is expected to hear from several current and former FBI officials and former Clinton campaign operatives. Prosecutors said they expect to call Marc Elias, a prominent Democratic attorney and former general counsel to Clinton's 2016 campaign, to testify as early as Tuesday afternoon.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Monday announced a series of measures aimed at increasing the domestic U.S. supply of infant formula to counteract the current shortage, including temporary import guidelines and flexibilities for companies that don't normally sell formula.

The FDA said it will temporarily "not object" to the importation of certain infant formula products or the distribution of formula products that are manufactured in the U.S. but are meant to exported to foreign countries.

"We've set up a mechanism that streamlines the ability for companies that do not normally sell infant formula in this country to do so. And it provides other flexibilities to domestic distributors who can help increase availability," FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said in a press call.

When asked if these measures could signal the FDA permanently opening the U.S. up to infant formula products that previously had not been allowed in, the officials stressed that these measures are meant to be temporary.

The new guidances announced on Monday are set to last for the next 180 days. Califf said the question over whether the U.S. needed more diversity in its product availability would be discussed when the supply chain is normalized and stable.

Susan Mayne, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, noted that there are regulatory differences between products that are permitted to be sold in the U.S. and those that are sold abroad.

"We're casting a broad net. We are seeking manufacturers from around the globe who they have available product that could meet our regulatory standards for both nutrition and food safety — to reach out to us let us know what they have available and we can discuss with them what that might look like to get that product into the U.S.," Mayne said.

Companies interested in taking advantage of these temporary flexibilities are asked to "quickly" submit information to the FDA for evaluation. Mayne noted that it is important that the labelling for these products be in English so that consumers in the U.S. are able to read the instructions.

News of these measures came shortly after it was announced that baby formula manufacturer Abbott Nutrition had reached an agreement with the FDA to restart operations at its plant in Michigan after three months of being shuttered.

Operations at the plant had been halted while the FDA investigated whether powdered infant formula made at the facility was linked to four cases of infants contracting rare bacterial infections.

Part of what contributed to the current shortage in the infant formula supply is due to the recall that was issued following the reports of bacterial infections in infants. Frank Yiannas, the FDA's deputy commissioner for food policy and response, said discussions on how to boost supply began as soon as the recall was issued.

The FDA officials on Monday noted the "treachery" of trying to give exact timelines, but referred to Abbott's own estimations that it will be able restart operations within about two weeks and back to full capacity within two months.

A trial over whether a lawyer with ties to the Democratic Party lied to the FBI in 2016 is set to begin on Monday in what could be the first major test for John Durham, the special counsel appointed during the Trump administration to investigate the former president's allegations of a conspiracy to undermine his campaign. 

Michael Sussmann, a former partner at the law firm Perkins Coie, is charged with making false statements to the FBI's top lawyer during the 2016 campaign when he handed over data to the bureau purporting to show links between Trump and a Russian bank.

Durham’s office is alleging that Sussmann, who was representing Hillary Clinton’s campaign and a cybersecurity researcher at the time, falsely claimed he was not representing any particular client when he met with the FBI’s then-general counsel James Baker in September 2016.

The FBI looked into Sussmann’s evidence – internet data purporting to show a line of communication between the Trump Organization and the Russian Alfa Bank – and found nothing to support the allegations.

The trial will center on the question of whether Sussmann lied when he said his clients did not prompt the tip to the FBI, and if he did, whether that lie was material in that it affected how federal law enforcement pursued the investigation.

In the indictment from September, prosecutors wrote, “Sussmann's lie was material because, among other reasons, Sussmann's false statement misled the FBI General Counsel and other FBI personnel concerning the political nature of his work and deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and technical analysis, including the identities and motivations of Sussmann's clients.”

Last month, prosecutors with the special counsel’s office released a text message Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor, had sent to Baker the night before their meeting, in which he wrote, “I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau.”

The new evidence will likely bolster Durham’s prosecution at trial, but legal experts say that the case is far from a slam dunk.

Jeff Robbins, a former federal prosecutor who now represents the subjects of government investigations in private practice, says there are a number of hurdles the special counsel’s prosecutors will have to overcome at trial, including convincing the jury that the FBI investigation was materially affected by Sussmann allegedly hiding the political nature of his work.

Robbins added that Sussmann’s and his firm’s well-known connections to the Democrats could make it hard for the prosecution to make the case that the FBI was duped into thinking the lawyer was offering information untainted by the politics of the 2016 presidential campaign.

“One question to work with if you're the defense is why would a former federal prosecutor lie to the FBI and make a statement, which was so clearly false – if you believe the prosecution's version of what he said – when it would be at a minimum subject to serious doubt with a second’s googling of his law firm?” Robbins said.

“It's almost impossible to believe that the general counsel of the FBI believed that a partner at Perkins Coie had no connection to the Clinton campaign or the Democratic Party at all when they were well known to represent them.”

Sussmann’s defense team maintains that he did not commit any wrongdoing and has signaled that they will introduce hundreds of internal FBI emails at trial showing that the bureau was well aware of his political clients.

The political implications of the case are sure to loom over the case for the next two weeks.

Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, tapped Durham as early as 2019 to probe the origins of the FBI’s investigation into alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Barr appointed Durham as special counsel in October 2020, allowing him to continue the investigation when the Biden administration began.

Trump’s opponents have criticized Durham’s probe as a politically-motivated effort to support the former president’s allegations that his 2016 campaign was persecuted by a “deep state” conspiracy by Democratic officials and law enforcement to smear him with unfounded claims of Russian collusion.

The Durham investigation appears to be ongoing and has lasted longer than Robert Mueller’s own special counsel probe. Sussmann is one of three defendants to have been charged as a result of the investigation and is the first to go to trial.

The case will hold high stakes for both Sussmann, who faces a maximum possible prison sentence of eight years if convicted, and Durham’s investigation. 

“I think that if he loses this case, it will be a serious blow to his reputation and to the enterprise,” Robbins said.

And the decision to charge Sussmann had already raised eyebrows among legal commentators because it involved a one-on-one meeting that was not recorded and had no other witnesses.

Gene Rossi, who served as a federal prosecutor for nearly 30 years, said the indictment is questionable in part because it risks pitting one individual’s account of a private meeting against another’s.

“You have no audio, you have no video, you have no contemporaneous notes. You just have Michael Sussmann versus Baker at a meeting in September 2016. That is not a strong case,” Rossi said. “They're going to trial on something that was said almost six years ago.”

But he added that there’s an opening for Durham’s prosecutors to construct a narrative of political deception in court that a jury could potentially find persuasive.

“When you have a jury trial nothing is ever guaranteed, so neither side should feel confident as they enter this trial,” Rossi said.

Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday that the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion signaling the court is prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade has changed the high court and eroded trust.

“The institution that I'm a part of, if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone, ... you would say, ‘Oh, that's impossible. No one would ever do that.’ There's such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, a belief in what we were doing that that was verboten. It was beyond anyone's understanding, or at least anyone's imagination, that someone would do that,” Thomas said during an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Hoover Institution in Dallas. 

“And look where we are, where now that trust or that belief is gone forever. And when you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I'm in, it changes the institution fundamentally,” he added.

During his remarks, Thomas called the leak “tremendously bad” and expressed concerns that it was undermining the Supreme Court.

“I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad. I think it's — I wonder how long we're going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them,” he said. “And then I wonder when they're gone, or they are destabilized, what we will have as a country. And I don't think that the prospects are good if we continue to lose, though.”

It was at least Thomas’ second speaking engagement this month following the leak of the draft ruling, purportedly written in February, that indicated the high court is prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that legalized abortion.

Speaking at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference to lawyers and judges earlier this month, Thomas appeared to allude to the leak with several references to “unfortunate events” that week but did not directly address it, according to The Washington Post.

A final decision is expected by the court in the coming weeks. The Senate failed this week in advancing legislation that would have codified abortion protections, with all 50 Senate Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) voting against it.

Advocates are demanding that the White House and Democrats develop an immediate strategy for defending abortion rights with potentially only weeks remaining before the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade. 

Frustration among activists was palpable this week after a vote to advance a long-shot bill to codify Roe’s protections failed to garner even 50 votes in the Democratic-held Senate. Outside groups say the ensuing calls by President Biden and members of his party to elect more pro-choice candidates in the upcoming midterm elections ring hollow and fail to grasp the urgency of the moment.  

“Just saying, ‘We just need you to vote’ is not a solution,” said Renee Bracey Sherman, head of the group We Testify, which represents women who have had abortions. “This idea of 'Just hang on until November' is not realistic for keeping the clinics open and making sure that they're able to keep their rent space, that they're able to keep their staffs employed." 

Abortion rights advocates are bewildered by the Biden administration's seeming lack of preparation for Roe’s likely impending demise, despite widespread consensus that the landmark 1973 decision has been in danger under the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. 

A leaked draft opinion striking down Roe, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and reportedly backed by at least four other conservative justices, would strip away the constitutional right to abortion and hand virtually unfettered authority to states to regulate the procedure. 

“What Alito’s decision brought to us was not a particular surprise,” said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at Georgetown University. “It's really surprising, and somewhat disappointing, that the White House appeared flat-footed and didn't come right out of the box with a plan. So they're leading from behind now. They're really reacting rather than being proactive.” 

According to the abortion rights advocacy group Guttmacher Institute, 22 states would be certain to attempt to ban abortion as quickly as possible. Among those, 13 have trigger laws already in place, designed to take effect automatically or by quick state action if Roe no longer applies. 

The Supreme Court confirmed the authenticity of the draft opinion, published by Politico on May 3, but cautioned that its contents and the justices’ votes were subject to change prior to the publication of a final decision. 

In response to the leak, Biden ordered the Gender Policy Council and the White House counsel’s office to develop a response plan. But the administration has declined to provide details until after the final ruling drops, which is expected by late June. 

Meanwhile, Biden has emphasized his view that a women’s right to abortion is fundamental and repeatedly joined Democrats in calling on voters to send more pro-choice lawmakers to Washington in the November elections. 

Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the fourth-ranking House Democrat, said the party is planning an aggressive messaging campaign, to include protests and other public events, designed to highlight the practical ramifications if Roe is overturned. 

Yet Clark also acknowledged that Democrats, without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, are essentially powerless to protect abortion rights at the federal level. The issue rests with voters, she said, who will decide in November which party controls the House and Senate — and by what margins.   

"There's a lot at stake, and I think the answer's going to be at the ballot box," she said. "Let's be clear: a majority in the Senate is 60 votes, and we don't have that. So what we need is a majority that is going to support over half of the country and their right to make the most private and intimate decisions on their own."  

John LaBombard, senior vice president at Rokk, a bipartisan public affairs firm, and former communications director to Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz.), applauded the White House’s messaging as “spot on.” 

“Effectively strategizing for anything, including this critical goal of protecting women’s rights to make their health care decisions, starts with realizing the reality that we’re in,” he said. “Successfully electing pro-choice leaders in the states and districts that matter to majorities … is the only way forward. And that’s hard, it’s a long process.” 

But for many, the White House’s reluctance to provide specifics points to a lack of candor by the administration over the weighty stakes of eliminating a constitutional right that for nearly five decades has guaranteed abortion access nationwide. 

“The Biden administration's options are very limited,” said Gostin, of Georgetown. “But he should be out front talking about that rather than just pretending that there's going to be some bold move.”  

“I think the feeling of despair has a certain amount of justification to it,” he added. “And I think setting up a new task force or electing pro-choice Democrats is a very weak and almost self-serving response to people's pain and anger.” 

Gostin said the White House should focus on what he called “winnable battles.” He suggested that Biden lean on administrative agencies to study the physical and mental harm associated with curtailed abortion access, make medication abortion more widely available across state lines and prepare to challenge restrictive state abortion laws in court. 

Some activists have faulted Biden for not using the presidential bully pulpit to advocate more forcefully for abortion rights. But for Biden, a practicing Catholic, his attempts over a lengthy political career to balance faith with his support for abortion access have resulted in a fraught relationship with the issue. 

White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to answer directly when asked on Friday if Biden would meet with activists, emphasizing that support for maintaining Roe’s protections has mainstream appeal that reaches beyond abortion rights advocates. 

But We Testify’s Sherman said an audience with Biden at the White House could go to great lengths to elevate and humanize the fight for abortion rights. She cited a 1996 meeting then-President Clinton held with activists in the Oval Office as having sent a strong message of support. 

“There's so much that [Biden] could do that is free, that does not need budgetary approval, does not need an act of Congress, does not need anything other than him using his own mouth to talk about why every single person in this country loves someone who's had an abortion and what his plan is to show up,” she said. 

—Mike Lillis contributed to this report 

The House Judiciary Committee is set to hold a hearing next week on the “ongoing crisis in abortion care access” and the implications of the Supreme Court potentially overturning the 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade.

The committee has scheduled a hearing for 10 a.m. Wednesday, titled “Revoking Your Rights: The Ongoing Crisis in Abortion Care Access.” It was not immediately clear who will be testifying at the hearing. 

The chairman of the committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), told NBC News in a brief interview that he hoped the hearing would produce more information about the possible consequences of Roe v. Wade, which established the federal right to abortion, being overturned by the high court. 

“What are the implications? What are all the implications? I think we know a lot of them, but what are all the implications?” he told NBC News.

Another member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), told the network in an interview that “nobody is safe” and claimed the recently leaked Supreme Court draft opinion, which would remove federal level abortion protections, “is literally undoing 50 years of precedent and signaling that they will go after other privacy rights.”

The hearing comes as the high court is expected to issue its final decision within the next two months in the case, which concerns a Mississippi abortion law that effectively bans the procedure after 15 weeks.

All 50 Republican senators and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) earlier this week blocked a bill that sought to codify abortion rights ahead of the anticipated decision.

The Hill has reached out to the committee for further comment. 

Two Republican governors and more than two dozen state attorneys general wrote letters to Attorney General Merrick Garland, urging him to enforce federal law to protect the Supreme Court justices in light of recent protests outside of their homes. 

"Today, we together ask that the Department of Justice through the respective United States Attorneys' offices provide appropriate resources to safeguard the Justices and enforce the law as it is written,” Govs. Larry Hogan (R-Md.) and Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.) wrote in a letter dated Wednesday. 

“It is critical that our Department acts to preserve the safety and standards of the highest court in the land. There is simply too much at stake."

The two governors pointed to a section of the United States code that says a person can be fined, put in prison or both if they “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer.”

Youngkin and Hogan wrote to Garland that “it is in your hands to ensure that applicable federal law is enforced to preserve the integrity of our American judiciary system and the safety of our citizens.”

Separately, 25 Republican state attorneys general also wrote to Garland on Wednesday calling for him to make sure the Supreme Court justices were protected.

“Here, in the face of escalating extremism directed at the judicial branch, you have an obvious role to play. Congress recognized that pressuring judges to change their votes by protesting outside their homes directly threatens the rule of law,” the state attorneys general wrote.

“You profess to share those concerns, having unequivocally stated that attacking a courthouse ‘to prevent judges from actually deciding cases’ plainly constitutes ‘domestic extremism, domestic terrorism,’” they continued. “You can and should act accordingly by faithfully executing federal law to prevent protestors from attempting to intimidate the Justices of the Supreme Court, both to protect the Justices and to safeguard the rule of law.” 

The development comes as a Supreme Court draft opinion published last week indicated that the high court is preparing to strike down the 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. The draft ruling was purportedly written in February.

The possibility that federal level abortion protections could soon be eliminated has galvanized Democrats and abortion-rights activists, with some activists staging protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices.

That protesting, however, has been criticized by both Republicans and some Democrats. 

Justice Department spokesperson Anthony Coley said in a statement on Wednesday amid the recent protesting that “Attorney General Garland continues to be briefed on security matters related to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Justices.”

“The Attorney General directed the U.S. Marshals Service to help ensure the Justices’ safety by providing additional support to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Police.”

The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for additional comment. 

A New York appeals court appeared skeptical on Wednesday of former President Trump's effort to challenge a state attorney general subpoena demanding his testimony.

During a hearing, a panel of judges on the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division seemed unpersuaded by Trump's attorney, who argued that the civil subpoena was improper in part because it would complicate the former president's right against self-incrimination amid a separate criminal investigation.

Justice Rolando Acosta repeatedly questioned whether the state judiciary has the authority to intervene in such an investigation on Trump's behalf.

"You're asking us to eliminate dozens of years of precedent, to somehow act like a legislature and say, 'Let's constrain the powers that the legislature has given you to prosecute civilly and criminally,'" Acosta said.

Trump is asking the appeals court to overturn a judge's order that he and his two oldest children sit for a deposition with the attorney general's office.

Arthur Engoron, the lower court judge, had ruled in February against Trump's effort to block the subpoena, saying New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) was within her right to seek both documents and testimony from the former president and his family as her office investigates potential fraud within his company.

“In the final analysis, a State Attorney General commences investigating a business entity, uncovers copious evidence of possible financial fraud, and wants to question, under oath, several of the entities’ principals, including its namesake. She has the clear right to do so,” Engoron wrote in his decision.

Last month, Engoron also found Trump in contempt and fined him $10,000 a day for failing to comply with aspects of the subpoena that were not part of the appeal, specifically the demands for business documents within his control.

Prior to the appeals court hearing on Wednesday, Engoron lifted the contempt ruling on the condition that Trump pay more than $100,000 in fines to James's office.

Trump's legal team is arguing in its appeal that the attorney general's subpoenas should be blocked because of the joint criminal investigation into his company that James's office is participating in with the Manhattan district attorney. The attorney general's civil subpoena, they argue, is circumventing the grand jury process for criminal investigations and jeopardizing Trump's constitutional rights.

"They have never denied that whatever information they get under the guise of this civil subpoena is going to go right to the DA's office," Trump's attorney, Alan Futerfas, said during Wednesday's hearing.

Judith Vale, a lawyer with the attorney general's office, countered that there is nothing unusual about parallel civil and criminal investigations and said the Trumps are free to invoke their rights against self-incrimination during a deposition.

"Under state and federal law the privilege against self-incrimination is a shield against being compelled to incriminate yourself," Vale said. "It is not a sword that can be used to quash a civil investigative subpoena."

It's unclear when the appeals court will decide the case.

Both parties will face off in court again on Friday, when James' office will ask a federal judge to throw out Trump's lawsuit seeking to block the investigation.

House Democratic leaders on Wednesday vowed to move quickly on legislation providing additional security for family members of Supreme Court justices amid the fierce national debate over the future of abortion rights.

The Senate on Monday approved a bill to boost that security, with senators providing unanimous support for the legislation.

House Democratic leaders said they haven't determined how exactly they'll proceed on the issue. But they stressed the importance of protecting public servants of all stripes from violence of any kind.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he's set to begin talks with Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to decide the path forward.

"Let me say emphatically: We need to protect Supreme Court justices and their families, period. We're a nation of laws, not of violence, not of intimidation," Hoyer told reporters in the Capitol.

Hoyer emphasized that he hasn't seen the Senate bill. "But we're certainly going to look at it, we're going to look at it quickly," he added.

"It just passed [the Senate]. I want to look at it and talk to Jerry and see what kind of legislation we'll put forward."

Nadler on Wednesday supported the concept, calling it "a good idea."

But not all Democrats appear to be on board.

Following passage of the Senate bill, Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) said it would "take a lot of convincing for me to vote for this."

In a subsequent statement, Torres suggested the legislation was a political ploy designed to misrepresent "peaceful" abortion rights protestors as a violent threat. She criticized the Senate for acting to protect the members of the court before passing legislation to protect women's abortion rights, which the court appears poised to repeal.

“It’s frustrating that the Senate would move so quickly to provide protections for Supreme Court Justices against peaceful protestors, but has taken so long to protect a woman’s bodily autonomy and her right to choose," Torres said.

"These justices of course have a right to safety," she continued, "and I implore protestors to continue to use peaceful methods to make their voices heard and encourage them to protest at official offices, but it’s shameful the Senate has passed this bill before addressing the safety and well-being of all women across the country.”

The Supreme Court has come under intense scrutiny since early last week, when Politico published a draft opinion by the court's conservative majority that would eliminate the protections provided by Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that established the constitutional right to abortion.

The news has stirred demonstrations across the country from activists on both sides of the issue. Amid outcry from abortion rights groups, some protestors have gathered outside the home of Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the draft ruling, as well as those of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

In response, the Senate moved quickly this week to pass legislation to expand the domain of the Supreme Court Police to include immediate family members of the nine justices and "any" other court officers "if the Marshal determines such protection is necessary.”

Sponsored by Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), the bill was fast-tracked by a procedure known as unanimous consent, which requires the support of every senator.

Like Hoyer, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said he hasn't yet read the Senate bill. But he endorsed the concept of expanding security for any branch of government under threat of violence — an issue that's been under the spotlight since last year's deadly attack on the Capitol by a mob of supporters of former President Trump.

"We'll have an opportunity to review the particulars of the legislation. I haven't. But I certainly support the notion that public servants should be protected in the strongest way possible at all times," Jeffries said. "If anyone believes in that it's House Democrats, who were almost overrun by a violent mob of insurrectionists on Jan. 6."

A judge on Wednesday released former President Trump from being held in contempt on the condition that he pay a $110,000 fine to the New York attorney general's office for failing to comply with a subpoena for his business records.

During a hearing, New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron said that halting his contempt ruling would also be contingent on Trump's lawyers submitting more information to the court about their efforts to comply with his order earlier this year that the former president comply with the subpoena, according to the attorney general's office.

The judge gave Trump until May 20 to comply with the conditions.

Engoron last month found Trump in contempt for failing to turn over requested documents and ordered him to pay $10,000 a day until he complied.

Trump's attorney did not immediately respond when asked for comment.

The former president has been fighting the investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) and has appealed the contempt ruling as well as Engoron's February decision ordering him to testify in the probe.

James is investigating whether the Trump Organization has engaged in fraud by repeatedly inflating the value of its assets over the years for financial gain. The investigation is a civil matter, meaning it cannot lead to criminal charges.

Both parties are due in court later Wednesday afternoon for appellate arguments over the judge's decision to uphold the attorney general's subpoena.

A majority of Americans now disapprove of the Supreme Court’s overall performance following the leak of a draft opinion that would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to a new Monmouth University Poll. 

The poll, published on Wednesday, found that 52 percent of those surveyed said that they currently disapprove of the job the court is doing, while 38 percent of respondents said they approve. 

Two months ago, respondents were evenly split on the same question, with 42 percent approving and 42 percent disapproving of the high court's job performance. 

Seventy-five percent of respondents who identify as Democrats said they disapprove of the job the court doing, jumping from 54 percent of Democratic respondents saying the same thing in March, according to the poll. 

The percentage of Independent respondents who said they disapprove of the Supreme Court's performance also increased, up from 37 percent in March to 57 percent in the new poll.

In contrast, 65 percent of those surveyed who identify as Republicans said they currently approve of the job the high court is doing, compared with 52 percent of Republican respondents who said the same in March.

When asked if the court should revisit the Roe v. Wade decision, which established the federal right to abortion, 36 percent of respondents said it should be revisited, while 57 percent said the 1973 decision should remain as it is. 

If the Supreme Court does overturn Roe, 44 percent of respondents said they would like to see Congress pass a law making abortions legal across the U.S., while 43 percent said the states should make their own laws on abortion and 9 percent said that Congress should pass a law banning abortion nationwide. 

Thirty-three percent of respondents said that abortion should always be legal, and 31 percent said it should be legal with some limitations. On the other side of the issue, 26 percent said abortion should be illegal with exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is endangered and 8 percent said it should always be illegal. 

The Monmouth University poll was conducted from May 5 to 9 with a total of  807 adult respondents. The margin of error for the poll was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. 

Abortion rights activists in recent days have gathered outside the homes of three conservative Supreme Court justices to protest Roe v. Wade’s potential demise, taking their advocacy in an intensely personal and politically divisive direction.

The targeting of the residences — belonging to Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts — has forced the White House to navigate a thorny question about the proper bounds of political discourse, one with sharply divided views over whether the tactic marks a worrisome escalation or an impassioned response befitting the likely loss of an almost 50-year-old constitutional right.

The Biden administration attempted this balancing act on Monday, with White House press secretary Jen Psaki denouncing the prospect of threats or violence but stopping short of condemning the protests outside of justices’ homes. 

“We are a country that promotes democracy, and we certainly allow for peaceful protest in a range of places in the country,” Psaki said. “None of it should violate the law.”

Some political analysts viewed that response as tepid. Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program, said the Biden administration’s message could have been stronger.

“They’re trying to walk a line, pretty clearly, between a firm stance against violence toward judges while not alienating their pro-Roe base,” Wheeler said. 

The recent demonstrations played out as street protests in major American cities and a suspected arson attack Sunday on a Wisconsin anti-abortion group have fueled concerns over whether Roe’s potential demise could spark a new wave of political violence in the U.S. 

Robert Blair, coordinator of the Democratic Erosion consortium at Brown University, argued that the risk of political violence in the U.S. is very high and anything that contributes to the problem should be avoided. He said leaders need to say these protests cross a line in order to curtail violence.

“One of the fundamental problems of Jan. 6 is people in positions of leadership weren’t coming out and saying, ‘Hey, stop this.’ Most obvious: Donald Trump,” Blair said. “To the extent that you have folks like [President] Biden, or folks who are known to be supporters of abortion rights, coming out and denouncing these kinds of tactics, that’s important because it sends a really important signal that this is alienating people and I think that’s valuable.”

Other experts expressed less concern. Rachel Kleinfeld, an expert on political violence, agreed that government officials’ homes should be off limits, but she said she’s “not particularly worried” about the prospect of political violence erupting in response to overturning Roe.

“The vast majority of political and criminal violence globally is committed by men. The people most enraged by the Roe decision are women,” said Kleinfeld, a senior fellow in democracy, conflict and governance at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “While men may be in the streets, their feelings are on the whole less visceral.”

On the political left, she added, those who most strongly support violence are the least close to the Democratic Party: “That makes their violence more spontaneous and less politically organized,” she said.

In discussing her opposition to protests outside people’s homes on either side, Kleinfeld said “there should be a separation between where people live and the jobs they do, to protect their children from trauma, as well as for democratic reasons.”

ShutDownDC, which is organizing the demonstration in Alito’s neighborhood this week, defended its decision to protest outside of individual homes because “it’s clear that the Justices don’t want to hear public opinion.”

“If they won’t listen to us at the building that symbolizes the power they have over us, then they’ll have to listen enough to us at a building that symbolizes just how personal this is—their homes,” Hope Neyer, a communications team member with ShutDownDC, told The Hill.

“To those suggesting that protests like this go too far, or cross a line, we say this leaked decision, if officially announced, crosses a line,” Neyer added.

Republican leaders forcefully denounced the demonstrations outside of justices’ homes as an intimidation tactic. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday called the protests an attempt to “scare federal justices into ruling a certain way” and “far outside the bounds of First Amendment speech or protest.” 

Lawmakers are moving to quickly try to pass legislation that would extend the security Supreme Court justices have to their family members. A close ally of Biden, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), was among the senators who introduced the legislation.

A draft Supreme Court opinion last week revealed that a bare 5-4 majority of the court’s most conservative justices are reportedly poised to overturn the landmark decision in Roe, which for nearly five decades has guaranteed a federal right to abortion access.

Within hours of the Monday evening leak, published by Politico, large crowds had gathered outside the Supreme Court. By Tuesday, law enforcement officials had installed 7-foot, black security fencing around the building and subsequently closed off portions of adjacent streets.

The fencing is part of stepped-up crowd-control precautions in the wake of the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump’s supporters breached the building in an attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election results. Security fencing was up around the Capitol’s grounds for nearly five months after the insurrection.

The latest tumult comes amid a steep drop-off in recent years of the Supreme Court’s public standing, which has sunk to a historic low, and as new polling suggests the 6-3 conservative court is moving even further out of step with Americans, a majority of whom want to see Roe upheld. 

Amid the fallout last week, critics accused the three Trump-appointed justices of having lied to the American public during their confirmation hearings by indicating they viewed Roe as settled law, only to endorse striking down the landmark 1973 decision soon after joining the bench. Many also recalled the Senate GOP’s refusal in 2016 to let then-President Obama fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a move which would have insulated Roe. 

The fallout over the draft opinion has created a messaging problem for the Biden administration. Although the White House has clearly condemned the attack at an anti-abortion group’s office in Madison, Wis., the more difficult response has concerned the demonstrations in the D.C. area.  

Asked on Monday if Biden plans to condemn the protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices, Psaki noted there has not been violence or vandalism against justices. 

“As an independent body, how they are influenced or if they are influenced is not for me to make a determination of, but we do believe in peaceful protests,” she said.

Amtrak is expanding its services in the northeast corridor for the time since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

In a statement on Monday, Amtrak announced the new summer schedule for its Northeast Regional and Acela lines will expand its service between Washington, D.C., and Boston, Mass, along with other cities in Pennsylvania and destinations as far south as New Orleans.

The service said it will run 13 weekly round trips between D.C. and New York City, and 23 more on the weekend. Eight weekly roundtrips will run between Boston and New York City, and 17 weekend trips.

Starting on May 23, the service will also expand services on its Acela train lines, adding 36 daily roundtrips through D.C., New York City, and Boston.

President Biden often speaks of his thousands of trips between Washington DC and his home in Wilmington, Del., on Amtrak. Last year, he appeared in Philadelphia to plug the billions of investments in passenger and freight rail in his infrastructure plan.

“Amtrak became my family,” he said. “You get to know everybody, you get to know the folks. … They work like the devil. They really, really do.”

Amtrak’s CEO Bill Flynn said last year the $66 billion for the passenger rail system in the infrastructure bill would spur the largest expansion in the railroad’s history.

Amtrak said the expansion has led to the hiring of 1,500 new employees in 2022, adding it aims to provide career growth and opportunities for the new employees, such as hiring bonuses and relocation packages. 

“Thanks to our dedicated existing employees and newly-hired staff, we are thrilled to expand our scheduled service just in time to meet customers’ rising demand for travel this summer,” Amtrak CEO Stephen Gardner said in a statement. 

The U.S is seeing a spike in COVID-19 cases in some areas in the northeast and mid-Atlantic, however hospitalizations remain far lower than previous highs during the winter omicron surge.