The Week That Was: All of Lawfare in One Post
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
On July 1, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Quinta Jurecic, Natalie Orpett, Roger Parloff, Lee Kovarsky, and Anna Bower for a live discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. U.S., which determined that presidents enjoy presumptive immunity from prosecution for all “official acts” and sent former President Donald Trump’s case back down to the lower courts for further fact-finding:
Jurecic and Wittes analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, criticizing the majority opinion for its lack of clarity and arguing that the holding enables a president to use their office as a shield for criminal conduct.
Jack Goldsmith analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. He emphasized that there are inherent tradeoffs between upholding the law and safeguarding presidential authority.
On July 5, Orpett was joined by Bower, Wittes, and Parloff for this week’s episode of “Lawfare Live: Trump’s Trials and Tribulations” to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States and the implications that the ruling will have on the various trials against Trump:
Hyemin Han shared the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States.
Matt Gluck, Han, and Katherine Pompilio summarized the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, two concurrences, and two dissents in the presidential immunity case, Trump v. United States.
Pompilio shared President Joe Biden’s remarks on the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.
Parloff analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States, which narrowed the scope of an obstruction statute charged in more than 300 criminal cases related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He explained that the Court’s ruling is not likely to significantly alter the outcomes of these prosecutions, because the Justice Department charged most of these Jan. 6 defendants with multiple felonies.
On Lawfare Daily, Wittes sat down with Jurecic and Parloff to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States:
From the courtroom in Trump’s classified documents case, Bower provided a dispatch covering Judge Aileen Cannon’s hearings on the legality of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment.
Charlotte Armistead, Julien Berman, Robert Miller, and Simone Oberschmied summarized the national security and foreign policy topics discussed in last week’s debate between Biden and Trump. They highlighted the two candidates’ different perspectives on a wide variety of issues, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, immigration, climate change, and more.
On Rational Security, Han, Jurecic, Alan Rozenshtein, and Kevin Frazier discussed the week’s big national security news stories, including President Biden’s underwhelming performance at the first presidential debate, the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity and NetChoice decisions, and more:
Berman shared the Supreme Court’s decision in the NetChoice cases, which vacated the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit judgments of Florida and Texas laws regulating social media platforms. The cases were sent back to the lower courts for a more detailed analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to the two laws.
Jeff Kosseff analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice, noting that although the Court remanded the case back to the lower courts for further analysis, Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion indicated that the two Texas and Florida laws restricting content moderation likely violate First Amendment rights.
On Lawfare Daily, Frazier sat down with Anupam Chander, Kyle Langvardt, and Rozenshtein to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which vacated the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit judgments of Florida and Texas laws regulating social media platforms:
Kellen Dwyer analyzed the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Moody v. NetChoice and Murthy v. Missouri, both of which addressed government influence over social media platforms’ content moderation practices. He noted that the Court’s rulings make it challenging for the government to regulate content moderation, which it considers to be protected expressive activity akin to a newspaper’s editorial decisions.
On Lawfare Daily, Frazier sat down with Dean Ball, Rozenshtein, and David Rubenstein to discuss A.I. regulation, specifically focusing on a novel and wide-reaching bill, SB 1047, pending before the California State Assembly:
In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren discussed the accusations against Korea Telecom—one of the largest providers of broadband and telecommunications services in South Korea—of deliberately infecting its customers with malware, Interpol’s global operation that led to the arrests of 4,000 scammers, the indictment of a Russian hacker targeting Ukrainian computer systems, and more.
On Chatter, David Preiss spoke to Kathy Peiss about her new book, “Information Hunters: When Librarians, Soldiers, and Spies Banded Together in World War II Europe,” exploring the role of U.S. librarians and information professionals in Europe during WWII. They discussed collaboration between early U.S. intelligence and the Library of Congress, the crucial efforts of women in war-torn Europe, debates over the destruction of Nazi books, and more:
Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany discussed the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. They argued that complementarity—which allows the ICC to defer to national jurisdictions—would be Israel’s most effective response to the arrest warrants.
Mark Nevitt examined the laws, policies, and incentives that the government uses to address climate adaptation and climate-driven disasters. He argued that the existing strategy is inconsistent and incoherent, and proposed a new one designed to democratize climate risk information, incentivize retreat from high-risk areas, and suspend government services in the most exposed areas.
And to support Lawfare’s coverage of the Trump Trials—a first-of-its-kind project dedicated to providing in-depth coverage of the ongoing criminal proceedings against Trump in Washington, Florida, New York, and Georgia—please consider making a contribution here. Lawfare’s talented correspondents and analysts discuss the latest developments in the cases, explain the complex legal issues they raise, and consider what might come next in a wide range of content, including written analysis, podcasts, live and recorded virtual events, primary source document repositories, and infographics.
And that was the week that was.