WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday took up Donald Trump’s bid to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn’t function as the commander in chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.

Lower courts have rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington. And even if the high court resoundingly follows suit, the timing of its decision may be as important as the outcome.

That’s because Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the November election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.

The court typically issues its last opinions by the end of June, which is roughly four months before the election.

Currently:

What to listen for during Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump and presidential immunity

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump is immune from federal prosecution. Here’s what’s next

What to know in the Supreme Court case about immunity for former President Trump

Trump is in New York for the hush money trial while the Supreme Court hears his immunity case in DC

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court

Here’s the latest:

First up on Thursday was D. John Sauer, making Donald Trump’s argument that he’s immune from criminal prosecution. A former Missouri solicitor general and onetime Supreme Court clerk, Sauer also represented Trump at the appeals court level.

Trump went to those arguments even though he wasn’t required to be there, but he won’t be in the audience at the Supreme Court today. He’s required to be in New York for his hush money trial.

About 30 demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court before arguments, some wearing judicial robes with kangaroo masks and others holding signs like “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.” That’s an apparent reference to the the timing of the high court’s ultimate decision in the case, which could determine whether a trial can be held before the election in November.

Shortly before arguments were slated to begin, Trump fired off a few posts Thursday on his social media network.

In one, he declared in all caps, “WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN GREAT AND EVERLASTING DANGER!”

Trump also said that without immunity, a president would just be “ceremonial” and the opposing political party “can extort and blackmail the President by saying that, ‘if you don’t give us everything we want, we will Indict you for things you did while in Office,’ even if everything done was totally Legal and Appropriate.”

Of the nine justices hearing the case, three were nominated by Trump — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. But it’s the presence of a justice confirmed decades before Trump’s presidency, Justice Clarence Thomas, that’s generated the most controversy.

Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, urged the reversal of the 2020 election results and then attended the rally that preceded the Capitol riot. That has prompted calls for the justice to step aside from several court cases involving Trump and Jan. 6.

But Thomas has ignored the calls, taking part in the unanimous court decision that found states cannot kick Trump off the ballot as well as last week’s arguments over whether prosecutors can use a particular obstruction charge against Capitol riot defendants.

The justices will probably meet in private a short time after arguments to take a preliminary vote on the outcome. Chief Justice John Roberts would be a prime candidate to take on the opinion for the court, assuming he is in the majority.

They could simply reject Trump’s immunity claim outright, permitting the prosecution to move forward and returning the case to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to set a trial date.

They could also reverse the lower courts by declaring for the first time that former presidents may not be prosecuted for conduct related to official acts during their time in office. Such a decision would stop the prosecution in its tracks.

There are other options, too, including ruling that former presidents do retain some immunity for their official actions but that, wherever that line is drawn, Trump’s actions fall way beyond it.

Yet another possibility is that the court sends the case back to Chutkan with an assignment to decide whether the actions Trump is alleged to have taken to stay in power constitute official acts.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Thursday the outright seizure of Russian assets is justifiable but is only one possibility, with assets instead able to serve as collateral for borrowing in the market to help Ukraine.

“That’s an option that’s been discussed. The leaders have asked us to give them a range of options,” Yellen said in an interview with Reuters, when asked if the leading option was pulling forward the interest on those assets to issue bonds or loans for Ukraine.

“The Europeans have taken a very constructive step and that is most of Russian assets held in Belgium … have now converted to cash and Euroclear earns interest on those assets. The European Union has agreed to segregate that interest and essentially move forward on a program in which it can be transferred to Ukraine. That is an approach that could be broadly supported by countries that are concerned about seizure of assets … there are a range of options.”

(Reporting by Alessandra Galloni; Writing by Lindsay Dunsmuir; Editing by Paul Simao)

NEW YORK (AP) — New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein ’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.

“We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” the court’s 4-3 decision said. “The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

The state Court of Appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein. His accusers could again be forced to retell their stories on the witness stand.

The court’s majority said “it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.”

In a stinging dissent, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the majority was “whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative,” and said the Court of Appeals was continuing a “disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.”

“The majority’s determination perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability,” Singas wrote.

Weinstein, 72, has been serving a 23-year sentence in a New York prison following his conviction on charges of criminal sex act for forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and rape in the third degree for an attack on an aspiring actress in 2013.

He will remain imprisoned because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein was acquitted in Los Angeles on charges involving one of the women who testified in New York.

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction for sexual assault and rape was overturned on Thursday by New York’s highest court, reopening the landmark case that launched the #MeToo movement and highlighting the challenges of holding powerful men accountable.

In a 4-3 decision, the state Court of Appeals said the trial judge made a critical mistake by letting women testify that Weinstein assaulted them even though they were not part of the charges he faced.

Arthur Aidala, a lawyer for Weinstein, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. He told the New York Times that the decision upheld “the most basic principles” that criminal defendants should have at a trial.

The court also said the trial judge compounded the error by letting Weinstein be cross-examined in a way that portrayed him in a “highly prejudicial” light.

“It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges,” Judge Jenny Rivera wrote for the majority.

“The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial,” she added.

In a sharp dissent, Judge Madeline Singas said the decision “perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability.

She also accused the majority of “whitewashing the facts” and continuing a “disturbing trend” of overturning jury verdicts in sexual violence cases.

Former comedian Bill Cosby saw his 2018 sexual assault conviction overturned three years later by Pennsylvania’s highest court. It said a 2005 agreement not to charge Cosby with drugging and assaulting a woman meant he should not have been charged a decade later.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose predecessor Cyrus Vance brought the case, will have to decide how to proceed against Weinstein.

“We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault,” Emily Tuttle, a spokesperson for Bragg, said in an email.

Weinstein, 72, has been serving a 23-year prison sentence, after being convicted in February 2020 of sexually assaulting a former production assistant in 2006, and raping an aspiring actress in 2013.

Bragg’s office is separately in the middle of a criminal hush money trial against former U.S. President Donald Trump.

It was not immediately clear how the decision would affect Weinstein, who has been serving his sentence in upstate New York.

Even if he were not retried, he still faces a 16-year prison sentence in California after being convicted there last year for the 2013 rape of an actress in Los Angeles.

Weinstein’s conviction in New York was considered a milestone for #MeToo, in which women have accused hundreds of men in entertainment, media, politics and other fields of sexual misconduct.

“Today’s decision is a major step back in holding those accountable for acts of sexual violence,” said Douglas Wigdor, a lawyer who represented eight of Weinstein’s accusers. “It will require the victims to endure yet another trial.”

Weinstein co-founded the Miramax film studio, whose hit movies included “Shakespeare in Love” and “Pulp Fiction.” His own eponymous film studio filed for bankruptcy in March 2018.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Brendan Pierson in New York, and Susan Heavey in Washington; editing by Paul Grant and Jonathan Oatis)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday appointed Lise Grande as the new special envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues, the State Department said in a statement.

Grande, who replaces David Satterfield, is currently head of the independent U.S. Institute of Peace. She previously worked for the United Nations for more than 25 years, a career that included running aid operations in Yemen, Iraq and South Sudan.

(Reporting by David Ljunggren; writing by Paul Grant)

By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. economy grew at its slowest pace in nearly two years as a jump in imports to meet still-strong consumer spending widened the trade deficit, but an acceleration in inflation reinforced expectations that the Federal Reserve would not cut interest rates before September.

The slowdown in growth reported by the Commerce Department in a snapshot of first-quarter gross domestic product on Thursday also reflected a slower pace of inventory accumulation by businesses and downshift in government spending. Domestic demand remained strong last quarter.

“This report comes in with mixed messages,” said Olu Sonola, head of economic research at Fitch. “If growth continues to slowly decelerate, but inflation strongly takes off again in the wrong direction, the expectation of a Fed interest rate cut in 2024 is starting to look increasingly more out of reach.”

Gross domestic product increased at a 1.6% annualized rate last quarter, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis said. Growth was largely supported by consumer spending. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast GDP rising at a 2.4% rate, with estimates ranging from a 1.0% pace to a 3.1% rate.

The economy grew at a 3.4% rate in the fourth quarter. The first quarter growth’s pace was below what U.S. central bank officials regard as the non-inflationary growth rate of 1.8%.

Inflation surged, with the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index excluding food and energy increasing at a 3.7% rate after rising at 2.0% pace in the fourth quarter.

The so-called core PCE price index is one of the inflation measures tracked by the Fed for its 2% target. The central bank has kept its policy rate in the 5.25%-5.50% range since July. It has raised the benchmark overnight interest rate by 525 basis points since March of 2022.

Consumer spending grew at a still-solid 2.5% rate, slowing from the 3.3% growth pace rate notched in the fourth quarter.

Economists worry that lower-income households have depleted their pandemic savings and are largely relying on debt to fund purchases. Recent data and comments from bank executives indicated that lower-income borrowers were increasingly struggling to keep up with their loan payments.

Business inventories increased at a $35.4 billion rate after rising at a $54.9 billion pace in the fourth quarter. Inventories subtracted 0.35 percentage point from GDP growth.

The trade deficit chopped off 0.86 percentage point from GDP growth. Excluding inventories, government spending and trade, the economy grew at a 3.1% rate after expanding at a 3.3% rate in the fourth quarter.

(Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Andrea Ricci)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell last week, pointing to still tight labor market conditions.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 207,000 for the week ended April 20, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast 215,000 claims in the latest week. Claims have been bouncing around in a 194,000-225,000 range this year.

Companies are hoarding workers after experiencing difficulties finding labor during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and are enjoying higher profit gains because of strong pricing power. Low layoffs are keeping wage growth elevated, sustaining consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity.

The number of people receiving benefits after an initial week of aid, a proxy for hiring, declined 15,000 to 1.781 million during the week ending April 13, the claims report showed.

The so-called continuing claims data covered the period during which the government surveyed households for April’s unemployment rate. Continuing claims fell between the March and April survey periods. The unemployment rate slipped to 3.8% in March from 3.9% in February.

(Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for an American believed to be held by the Taliban for nearly two years are asking a United Nations human rights investigator to intervene, citing what they say is cruel and inhumane treatment.

Ryan Corbett was abducted Aug. 10, 2022, after returning to Afghanistan, where he and his family had been living at the time of the collapse of the U.S.-based government there a year earlier. He arrived on a valid 12-month visa to pay and train staff as part of a business venture he led aimed at promoting Afghanistan’s private sector through consulting services and lending.

Corbett has since been shuttled between multiple prisons, though his lawyers say he has not been seen since last December by anyone other than the people with whom he was detained.

In a petition sent Thursday, lawyers for Corbett say that he’s been threatened with physical violence and torture and has been malnourished and deprived of medical care. He’s been held in solitary confinement, including in a basement cell with almost no sunlight and exercise, and his physical and mental health have significantly deteriorated, the lawyers say.

Corbett has been able to speak with his family by phone five times since his arrest, including last month. His family has not been able to see him — his only visits have been two check-ins from a third-party government — and their characterizations of his mistreatment are based on accounts from recently released prisoners who were with him and his openly dispirited tone in conversations.

“During Mr. Corbett’s most recent call with his wife and children, Mr. Corbett indicated that the mental torture and anguish have caused him to lose all hope,” said the petition, signed by the Corbett family attorneys, Ryan Fayhee and Kate Gibson.

The petition is addressed to Alice Edwards, an independent human rights investigator and the special rapporteur for torture in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the U.N. It asks Edwards, who was appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, to “urgently reach out to the Taliban to secure Mr. Corbett’s immediate release and freedom from torture, as guaranteed by international law.”

“This situation is just dragging on, and I’m increasingly concerned and taking steps that I hope will make a difference and help the situation — just increasingly concerned and panicking about Ryan’s deteriorating health and physical and mental health,” Corbett’s wife, Anna, said in an interview. “And that was leading me to take this next step.”

The U.S. government is separately working to get Corbett home and has designated him as wrongfully detained. A State Department spokesman told reporters last month that officials had continually pressed for Corbett’s release and were “using every lever we can to try to bring Ryan and these other wrongfully detained Americans home from Afghanistan.”

A spokesperson for the Interior Ministry in Afghanistan said this week that it had no knowledge of Corbett’s case.

Corbett, of Dansville, New York, first visited Afghanistan in 2006 and relocated there with his family in 2010, supervising several non-governmental organizations.

The family was forced to leave Afghanistan in August 2021 when the Taliban captured Kabul, but he returned the following January so that he could renew his business visa. Given the instability on the ground, the family discussed the trip and “we were all pretty nervous,” Corbett’s wife said.

But after that first uneventful trip, he returned to the country in August 2022 to train and pay his staff and resume a business venture that involved consulting services, microfinance lending and evaluating international development projects.

While on a trip to the northern Jawzjan province, Corbett and a Western colleague were confronted by armed members of the Taliban and were taken first to a police station and later to an underground prison.

Anna Corbett said that when she learned her husband had been taken to a police station, she got “really scared” but that he was optimistic the situation would be quickly resolved.

That, however, did not happen, and Anna Corbett, who has three teenage children and makes regular trips to Washington, said she’s trying to advocate as forcefully as she can while not letting “anxiety take over.”

“I feel like it’s the uncertainty of all of it that just is so difficult because you just don’t know what’s going to come at you — what call, what news,” she said. “And I’m worried about Ryan and the effect of the trauma on him and then also on my kids, just what they’re experiencing. I’ve tried to protect them the best I could, but this is so difficult.”

___

Associated Press writer Riazat Butt in Kabul, Afghanistan, contributed to this report.

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules and assume new regulatory oversight of broadband internet rescinded under former President Donald Trump.

The commission voted 3-2 in October along party lines to advance the proposal to reinstate open internet rules adopted in 2015 and re-establish the commission’s authority over broadband internet.

The FCC will vote to give final approval Thursday. It began debating the net neutrality item at 11 a.m. ET and a vote is expected within an hour.

Net neutrality refers to the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

“It is time to have broadband oversight, national net neutrality rules and policies that ensure the internet is fast, open, and fair,” said FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel. 

Rosenworcel says reclassifying broadband is critical to boost the FCC’s authority to “direct foreign-owned companies deemed to be national security threats to discontinue any domestic or international broadband services.”

She noted the FCC has taken similar actions against Chinese telecom companies using existing authority.

Reinstating the rules has been a priority for President Joe Biden, who signed a July 2021 executive order encouraging the FCC to reinstate net neutrality rules adopted under Democratic President Barack Obama.

Democrats were stymied for nearly three years because they did not take majority control of the five-member FCC until October.

Under Trump, the FCC had argued the net neutrality rules were unnecessary, blocked innovation and resulted in a decline in network investment by internet service providers, a contention disputed by Democrats.

A group of Republican lawmakers including House Energy and Commerce Committee chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Senator Ted Cruz called the plan “an illegal power grab that would expose the broadband industry to an oppressive regulatory regime” giving the agency and states power to impose rate regulation, unbundling obligations and broadband taxing authority.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Amazon.com, Apple, Alphabet and Meta Platforms, back net neutrality, arguing the rules “must be reinstated to preserve open access to the internet”.

USTelecom, whose members include AT&T, Verizon and others, called reinstating net neutrality “entirely counterproductive, unnecessary, and an anti-consumer regulatory distraction”.

Despite the 2017 decision to withdraw the requirement at the federal level, a dozen states now have net neutrality laws or regulations in place. Industry groups abandoned legal challenges to those state requirements in May 2022.

(Reporting by David ShepardsonEditing by William Maclean and Peter Graff)