Shows how low the bar has fallen

This victory at the Supreme Court shows how low the bar has fallen

Opinion by Joshua A. Douglas

In one of the most surprising US Supreme Court decisions in recent memory, a majority of the justices refused last week to gut the protections in the Voting Rights Act, one of the most important civil rights laws in history. The decision was unexpected given that the court’s conservative majority has undermined voting rights in numerous decisions before.

The case involved a congressional redistricting map of Alabama that harmed Black voters by drawing districts that diluted the strength of their voting power. After the 2020 Census, Alabama adopted the map, which split up communities of Black voters so that they were a majority in only one of the seven districts, even though they constitute about 27% of the state’s total population.

While the Supreme Court’s decision was a welcome surprise for many, the celebration of the court’s refusal to adopt Alabama’s radical argument to uphold the map despite its racial implications underscores how low the bar has become. The court did not offer a robust theory for expanding political participation or enhancing equality. It did not require states to stop partisan gerrymandering or prohibit voter suppression. It simply let the Voting Rights Act live for another day.

In a series of recent cases, the court has unduly deferred to state legislatures in its rules on how to run elections. It essentially blessed strict voter ID laws and partisan gerrymandering. It effectively took away the preclearance mechanism of the Voting Rights Act — which required states with a history of discrimination to seek preapproval of voting changes from a federal court or the Department of Justice before the voting rules could go into effect — in the infamous Shelby County decision 10 years ago. In 2021, the court curtailed the reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits a voting law that has the effect of racial discrimination, by making up “guideposts” a plaintiff must satisfy to bring a successful claim. Most commentators therefore thought the justices would similarly narrow that protection of the Voting Rights Act this year.

In Thursday’s decision, the justices — with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the three more liberal justices in the 5–4 ruling — rejected Alabama’s argument. The court instead faithfully applied its precedent, including a case from 1986 that sets out a three-part test for these cases. Alabama’s argument would have required the court to abandon that case.

As Chief Justice Roberts noted for the majority, “The heart of these cases is not about the law as it exists. It is about Alabama’s attempt to remake our §2 (Section 2) jurisprudence anew.” Although it’s shocking that a conservative majority did not once again rewrite the Voting Rights Act to narrow its protections, that fact should not absolve the court of the harm it has created in its voting rights jurisprudence.

First, the court allowed this illegal Alabama map to go into effect for the 2022 midterm election, meaning that Alabama voters elected their congressional representatives using unlawful maps. The lower court had struck down the map in January 2022, ordering the state to redraw a map with two majority-Black districts.

Just two weeks later, the Supreme Court put that lower court opinion on hold, allowing Alabama to use the map, even though there was plenty of time left before the election to draw a new one. That decision had a tangible effect: Republicans won six of the seven seats — all but the one majority-Black district.

The same thing happened in Louisiana: the Republican-controlled legislature drew a congressional map in which Black voters were a majority in only one district, though a fair map would have included two. A lower court ruled that the map likely violated the Voting Rights Act but the Supreme Court put that order on hold last summer as well. Republicans ended up winning five of the six districts in Louisiana in 2022.

Similarly, a federal court in Georgia let the state use a map in 2022 that it said was likely unlawful because it diluted the strength of minority voters, citing how the Supreme Court had allowed Alabama to adopt the map for that year. Thus, there were at least three states that used maps in 2022 that courts had found likely unlawful under the Voting Rights Act. Republicans won a majority in the House by just five seats.

Second, the court’s ultimate decision in the Alabama case, to reject an argument that would narrow the protection of the Voting Rights Act, essentially maintains the status quo. Voting rights advocates successfully played defense against an attack on that law.

But the court’s decision does not meaningfully advance the cause of voting rights to require greater inclusion or ease of voter access. It did not lay the groundwork to overrule its prior cases that had essentially removed the preclearance mechanism of the Voting Rights Act or narrowly construed Section 2 of the Act as applied to voting rules (as opposed to redistricting disputes). Nor did it adopt a robust theory of voting rights that prioritizes greater inclusivity and equality.

Justice Kavanaugh, who provided the fifth vote in favor of the Voting Rights Act, noted in a concurring opinion that he might consider a future argument — propounded by Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent – that “the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.” The court’s decision therefore might be just a temporary reprieve.

To be sure, the Supreme Court’s decision is good news: the Voting Rights Act will continue to protect minority voters in redistricting cases, forbidding states from drawing unfair maps that make it harder for minority voters to come together to elect their preferred candidates. Additional litigation may require fairer maps in several states for the 2024 election and beyond. But it’s good news only because the court did not do what many people had feared and harm voters even more.

We should expect more from the Supreme Court than a simple refusal to go along with an argument that would hurt minority voters and the cause of equality. Playing defense against further attacks on voting rights isn’t enough. The court should adopt a theory of robust voter participation to pave the way for universal democratic participation and uphold the right to vote as the most fundamental right in our democracy.

The bullshit get deep when orange is near....

The bogus Hillary Clinton excuse Republicans are using to defend Trump

Opinion by Dean Obeidallah

Some Republicans love to spout whataboutisms to defend against any allegations of wrongdoing by former President Donald Trump. The latest example comes after a federal indictment was unsealed Friday charging the former president with 37 criminal counts over his handling of classified documents after leaving office, including a violation of part of the Espionage Act.

These Republicans are defending the twice-impeached former president by pointing to Hillary Clinton not being charged over her handling of classified information while using a private email server when she was secretary of state.

For example, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a 2024 GOP presidential candidate, stated Friday, “Hillary had the emails,” adding, “Is there a different standard for a Democrat secretary of state versus a former Republican president?” And Trump ally GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina offered a similar defense Sunday on ABC News by invoking Clinton’s emails.

But comparing Trump’s actions to Clinton’s is akin to comparing a peaceful protest to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters.

True, some Republican officials have tried to rewrite the January 6 insurrection as being a “normal tourist visit.” But just as we should reject that attempt, we should dismiss any effort to equate what Trump is accused of doing with Clinton’s conduct.

They are not in the same universe, namely because the 49-page indictment alleges Trump’s behavior was deliberate and intentional in resisting government efforts to retrieve classified documents after the material was taken to Mar-a-Lago.

Lest we forget, in July 2015, the FBI opened a criminal investigation into Clinton as it examined whether the former secretary of state’s use of a private email server violated any laws concerning the storage of classified information.

After an investigation lasting nearly a year, then-FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend filing any criminal charges against Clinton, who was the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee at the time.

Comey stated that in looking at previous Department of Justice investigations concerning “mishandling or removal of classified information” there was always some combination of the following: “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

Comey concluded, “We do not see those things here,” although he criticized Clinton for being “extremely careless” in the handling of sensitive, classified information.

In contrast, allegations of repeated intentional conduct are at the heart of the case against Trump. For starters, 31 of the 37 felony counts that Trump faces are for willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act.

The defense information included highly sensitive military secrets such as “United States nuclear programs” and “potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack,” according to the indictment.

The indictment alleges intentional misconduct, accusing Trump of directing an aide to remove boxes containing classified documents from a storage area so that his own lawyers could not find documents required to comply with a grand jury subpoena. (Trump aide Walt Nauta faces six counts in the case, including several obstruction- and concealment-related charges. An attorney for Nauta declined to comment Friday.)

Bill Barr, a Republican who served as Trump’s attorney general, described the indictment as “very detailed” and “very, very damning” in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday”: “I was shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there were,” Barr said, “… and I think the counts under the Espionage Act that he willfully retained those documents are solid counts.”

Trump is also charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice over efforts to conceal these records and is accused of misleading his own attorney so that a false certification was submitted in response to the grand jury subpoena that all classified documents had been returned.

Noting the obstruction charges, Barr commented that the federal government ”acted in a very patient way. And what they were met with was, according to the government, and the indictment, very egregious obstruction.”

In contrast, Comey did not find evidence of obstruction on Clinton’s part.

The indictment against Trump alleges the former president knowingly shared classified information on two occasions, the most notable occurring in July 2021 at his country club in Bedminster, New Jersey, with a writer, publisher and two staff members, none of whom had security clearances.

During that meeting, Trump referred to plans drafted by the US military to attack another country. “This is secret information. Look, look at this,” Trump said, according to the indictment. Trump then admitted that since he was no longer president, he didn’t have the power to declassify that document. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret,” the indictment says. (CNN reported earlier that this meeting was captured on an audio recording that prosecutors had obtained.)

Interestingly, back in 2016, then-GOP presidential candidate Trump denounced Comey’s decision not to recommend charges against his Democratic rival, saying that “adversaries almost certainly have a blackmail file on Hillary Clinton.” He said she should be disqualified from being president and insisted “she was guilty.” In August 2016, the indictment cites Trump as saying, “In my administration I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”

Yet in the face of allegations of intentional and willful misconduct against him, Trump slammed the charges Saturday night at a Georgia Republican event as a “joke” and part of a “witch hunt.” (In a video Thursday, he insisted, “I am an innocent man. I did nothing wrong.”)

Given the polarized nation we live in, I doubt the differences between Trump’s and Clinton’s conduct will matter to the Trump faithful. But at this point, all that matters is: Can federal prosecutors convince a jury of 12 people that Trump is guilty? Doing so is always a heavy burden for prosecutors, but as Barr stated Sunday about what’s in the indictment against Trump, “If even half of it is true, he is toast.”

Fat tubs need to stay in "their" seat, not flow into my seat!

‘We’re paying twice for the same experience’: Plus-size travelers hit out at ‘discriminatory’ airline seat policies

(Fucking bullshit! I just had to endure 3 hours of having a fat tub flow into my seat. I paid for a seat, not having a fat tub roll their rolls of fat on me and only allowing me to have half a seat. Fuck them, if they are two people wide then their fat asses need to pay for two seats! This is my opinion, not the opinion of the author)

By Tamara Hardingham-Gill

While the average width of an airplane seat has been shrinking for decades, bodies are getting larger around the world, with experts predicting that over half of the global population will be overweight or obese by 2035.

This ultimately means that more and more passengers are likely to be finding it difficult to fit into airplane seats, and some may be hit in the pocket as a result.

Policies around plus-size travelers tend to vary from airline to airline. While a number, including United Airlines, require “customers who require extra seating” to buy an additional seat in advance, some refund the purchase if one or more seats are available after takeoff. However, there is no universal standard as such.

Different airlines have different guidelines. Some have no guidelines at all, meaning that even well-informed travelers can have trouble keeping up.

Policy confusion

In April, plus-size travel influencer Jae’lynn Chaney launched a petition urging the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to mandate all airlines for a comprehensive customer-of-size policy that “prioritizes the comfort and well-being of all passengers.”

“We need the policies to be a little bit more standardized,” Chaney tells CNN Travel. “At the bare minimum, we need every airline to have a policy that tells people of size how to navigate their airline.”

Charles Leocha, co-founder of airline consumer advocacy group Travelers United, shares this sentiment.

“All plus-sized passengers are appreciative of knowing the rules,” he adds. “It eliminates many misunderstandings.”

Outside of the US, the Australian Consumer Law prohibits airlines from charging passengers different amounts based on their body sizes.

Meanwhile, the “one person, one fare” (1p1f) policy, which prevented domestic airlines Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet from charging passengers requiring an extra seat for more than one fare, was passed by the Canadian Transportation Agency in 2008.

Obesity is recognized as a disability in Canada, and passengers must be considered “functionally disabled by obesity,” to meet the requirements for a free extra seat.

However, the rule only applies to domestic flights, which means that plus-size travelers still need to buy an extra seat when going on an international flight.

Tight fit

One of the various demands listed in Chaney’s petition, which had received over 17,000 signatures at the time of writing, is that all airlines “provide accessible additional seats to customers-of-size” who may require more space or “encroach onto another passenger’s space.”

“These passengers should be provided with an extra free seat, or even multiple seats, to accommodate their needs and ensure their comfort and safety, as well as those around them, during the flight,” reads the petition.

For Chaney, who has needed a seat belt extender from a young age, the issue is a hugely personal one.

“I kind of knew that planes were not built for people like me by the time I was 12,” she says, recalling trying to tuck her seatbelt underneath her stomach so that flight attendants couldn’t see that she hadn’t been able to buckle it.

“There was a really tight fit on the seats. And being such a young child at the time, traveling without my parents was really stressful for me. Because I didn’t know how to advocate for myself.”

Chaney feels that airline policies that require plus size travelers to buy an extra seat while flying are “discriminatory,” pointing out that passengers like her are “paying twice for the same experience.”

“People with smaller bodies get to pay one fare to get to their destination,” she says. “And we have to pay two fares, even though we’re getting the same experience. If anything, our experiences are a little bit more challenging.”

United Airlines, one of the US airlines that requires larger passengers to purchase an extra seat, declined to comment.

Chaney dismisses suggestions that plus-size travelers are asking for special treatment, stressing that they are simply “asking for the same dignity and respect from an airline that someone in a smaller body gets.”

Human rights issue?

Canadian air passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs says he views the practice of charging larger passengers for two seats as a human rights issue.

“Being a large-size person is not a choice, as many people mistakenly believe,” Lukacs tells CNN Travel.

“There is, unfortunately, a lot of negative attention and prejudice against plus-sized people.

“But it’s not as if someone is getting up in the morning and making a decision that they’re going to be a large person.

“So through that lens of human rights, I don’t see any justification for charging these people a double fare.”

Lukacs goes on to point out that airlines don’t provide discounts to people who are smaller sized, or even children, even though they’re much lighter, and therefore “less fuel is being consumed to transport them.”

“I’d be very concerned to see this type of argument being advanced where immutable characteristics of a person are being used for assessing fees,” he adds. “It can be a slippery slope.”

According to Chaney, aside from being a “financial burden,” the prospect of paying for two seats is an added complication to an experience that is already very difficult for many plus sized travelers.

“There’s so many different things, obstacles, that are in the way,” she explains.

Chaney regularly shares tips on flying as a plus-size person on her TikTok channel and says that one of the questions she’s asked the most is, “What do I do if the seatbelt does not fit?”

“It surprises me every time that many people don’t know that seat belt extenders exist,” she adds. “And that they’re available on all flights.”

Chaney admits that having to ask for a seat belt extender “isn’t always the most comfortable experience,” particularly when faced with hostile passengers, or even flight attendants, on some occasions.

Constant challenges

“The stereotypes that surround plus-size travelers, and the hostility towards us when we’re traveling by plane is honestly horrendous,” she adds.

“It can just be such an uncomfortable experience. People treat us very much differently.”

While Chaney stresses that much of the feedback she’s received since launching her petition has been hugely positive, she admits that she’s been subject to abuse, and even death threats, from members of the public.

“I have chosen to focus on the positivity and support,” she adds.

Earlier this year, content creator and plus size travel expert Kirsty Leanne went viral after posting a video of herself struggling to fit in an airplane seat while flying with a budget airline.

Leanne, who is also the founder of website Plus Size Travel Too, says she was shocked by the sheer volume of negative comments she received after sharing the clip, which detailed many of the problems she and other plus-size travelers face while onboard a plane.

“I was sharing my experience with the airlines and showing other plus-size travelers what to expect, so I didn’t expect so many people to think that the points I made were complaints of any kind,” Leanne tells CNN Travel via email.

“I thought I would get one or two negative comments as I always do with videos talking about being plus-size, but not to the extent that I did.”

While Chaney stresses that much of the feedback she’s received has been hugely positive, she admits that she’s been subject to abuse, and even death threats, from members of the public who take issue with her petition.

Over the past two decades, the width of the average seat has shrunk from 18.5 to 17 inches. Meanwhile, according to a study by the World Obesity Federation, around 38% of the world population are overweight or obese.

“This [shrinking seats] has had such a negative impact on plus-size travelers,” says Leanne. “So not only does it deter them from flying, but it also makes it incredibly uncomfortable for those that do choose to fly.

“With shrinking seats, there should be acknowledgement that plus-size people may require certain accommodations in order to allow them to fly safely and comfortably.”

When approached for comment by CNN, the FAA pointed to a 90-day public comment period, on minimum seat dimensions necessary for airline passenger safety, which was held last year.

“The agency is reviewing the thousands of comments it received on whether current seat size and spacing affect passenger evacuation,” the FAA said in a statement.

In 2022, Flyers Rights, a nonprofit organization, petitioned the FAA to regulate a minimum seat size, citing concerns about medical risks, including blood clotting, due to limited space, among other issues.

However, the petition was denied by a US appeals court earlier this year.

For Lukacs, decreasing airplane seat sizes are something that all travelers, not just those who are plus sized, should be troubled by.

“It is a concern, because being crammed in a very small seat could, apart from your comfort,  also affect your health, in terms of risks of deep vein thrombosis,” he notes.

“I’m not sure what the science is on that today, but I could see that being a problem. And also, we’re not cattle.

“We do expect, when we board a plane, to be treated with some reasonable level of respect.”

Back in 2013, Samoa Air, the flag carrier of Samoa, previously known as Polynesian Airlines, became the first airline to begin weighing passengers at the airport.

And last month, Air New Zealand confirmed that it will be weighing passengers as part of a “passenger weight survey,” to calculate data on the weight load and distribution for planes.

The national carrier of New Zealand has stressed that the survey is voluntary.

Chaney, who last took a plane ride in April 2022, says she’s most comfortable flying with Southwest Airlines, explaining that the airline’s “customer of size and extra seat policy,” which stipulates that passengers who require extra room can purchase another seat at the time of booking and claim the money back after contacting customer service.

Open hostility

When she flies with her partner Jake, who is also plus sized, the couple have to decide whether to buy four seats and sit apart, or purchase three seats between them and “just have it be a little bit of a tight fit.”

“We also make sure that our flights are only six or seven hours max, because we can’t use the restroom comfortably on the plane,” adds Chaney, who says that Jake has had passengers refuse to sit next to them.

Like Chaney, Leanne feels that it’s important to share her experiences, good and bad, while traveling, and hopes that other plus size travelers, who might be wary of getting on a plane, will see that “there’s nothing to be ashamed of.”

“Although it may be incredibly daunting and overwhelming to travel in a larger body, please do not let the experience of flying while fat put you off traveling,” she says.

“There are so many incredible things to see out there and I promise you, it’s worth it.”

According to Chaney, one of the biggest misconceptions about plus size travelers is the notion that they don’t consider how much space they take up.

“They [other travelers] think that we want to invade their space, or that we don’t care if we’re invading their space, or encroaching upon their space, especially in air travel,” she says.

“And that’s where a lot of the blatant hostility will come from. When in reality, so many people that I talk to, speak about how they try to shrink themselves.

“They try to lean up against the window. They try to make themselves as small as possible when traveling by plane, simply so that they don’t offend somebody else. So that they don’t have to face hostility or embarrassment.

“I know it’s something I think about all the time in life, no matter where I am.”

M101

Big, beautiful spiral galaxy M101 is one of the last entries in Charles Messier's famous catalog, but definitely not one of the least. About 170,000 light-years across, this galaxy is enormous, almost twice the size of our own Milky Way. M101 was also one of the original spiral nebulae observed by Lord Rosse's large 19th century telescope, the Leviathan of Parsontown. Assembled from 51 exposures recorded by the Hubble Space Telescope in the 20th and 21st centuries, with additional data from ground based telescopes, this mosaic spans about 40,000 light-years across the central region of M101 in one of the highest definition spiral galaxy portraits ever released from Hubble. The sharp image shows stunning features of the galaxy's face-on disk of stars and dust along with background galaxies, some visible right through M101 itself. Also known as the Pinwheel Galaxy, M101 lies within the boundaries of the northern constellation Ursa Major, about 25 million light-years away.

Trifid Nebula

What's happening at the center of the Trifid Nebula? Three prominent dust lanes that give the Trifid its name all come together. Mountains of opaque dust appear near the bottom, while other dark filaments of dust are visible threaded throughout the nebula. A single massive star visible near the center causes much of the Trifid's glow. The Trifid, cataloged as M20, is only about 300,000 years old, making it among the youngest emission nebulas known. The star forming nebula lies about 9,000 light years away toward the constellation of the Archer (Sagittarius). The region pictured here spans about 20 light years.

M94

Most galaxies don't have any rings of stars and gas -- why does M94 have two? First, spiral galaxy M94 has an inner ring of newly formed stars surrounding its nucleus, giving it not only an unusual appearance but also a strong interior glow. A leading origin hypothesis holds that an elongated knot of stars known as a bar rotates in M94 and has generated a burst of star formation in this inner ring. Observations have also revealed another ring, an outer ring, one that is more faint, different in color, not closed, and relatively complex. What caused this outer ring is currently unknown. M94, pictured here, spans about 45,000 light years in total, lies about 15 million light years away, and can be seen with a small telescope toward the constellation of the Hunting Dogs (Canes Venatici).

IC 1396

Like an illustration in a galactic Just So Story, the Elephant's Trunk Nebula winds through the emission region and young star cluster complex IC 1396, in the high and far off constellation of Cepheus. Seen on the left the cosmic elephant's trunk, also known as vdB 142, is over 20 light-years long. This detailed telescopic view features the bright swept-back ridges and pockets of cool interstellar dust and gas that abound in the region. But the dark, tendril-shaped clouds contain the raw material for star formation and hide protostars within. Nearly 3,000 light-years distant, the relatively faint IC 1396 complex covers a large region on the sky, spanning over 5 degrees. This rendition spans a 1 degree wide field of view though, about the angular size of 2 full moons. Of course the dark shapes below and to the right of the outstretched Elephant's Trunk, are known to some as The Caravan.

Loses 2 lawyers

Trump loses 2 lawyers just hours after being indicted

Jim Trusty and John Rowley announced they’d resigned. Meanwhile, a Trump aide also has been indicted, according to Trump.

By KYLE CHENEY

Two of Donald Trump’s top lawyers abruptly resigned from his defense team on Friday, just hours after news broke that he and a close aide were indicted on charges related to their handling of classified documents.

Jim Trusty and John Rowley, who helmed Trump’s Washington, D.C.-based legal team for months and were seen frequently at the federal courthouse, indicated they would no longer represent Trump in matters being investigated and prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, who is probing both the documents matter and efforts by Trump to subvert the 2020 election.

The resignations were shortly followed by an announcement from Trump himself confirming that a close aide, Walt Nauta, had also been indicted by federal prosecutors. Nauta, a Navy veteran, had served as the former president’s personal aide and was a ubiquitous presence during his post White House days.

In their place, Trump indicated that Todd Blanche — an attorney he recently retained to help fight unrelated felony charges brought by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg in April — would lead his legal team, along with a firm to be named later. Trump and his team have liked Blanche, who is expected to play a more elevated, central role.

Though Trump has had shakeups of his legal teams before, the current changes deprive Trump of some of his most seasoned legal hands at the most perilous moment of his legal travails. And it follows the recent departure of a third lawyer who had helped guide Trump’s defense in the documents matter: Tim Parlatore, who cited internal disagreement, particularly with longtime Trump hand Boris Epshteyn, as his reason for abruptly quitting.

One potential silver lining for Trump: The case appears to have been initially directed toward U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who handled his lawsuit last year after the FBI raided his Mar-a-Lago estate. Cannon, a Trump appointee to the federal bench, raised eyebrows with her unorthodox rulings sharply in Trump’s favor that were ultimately reversed by a panel of an appeals court.

Two people close to Trump did not dispute that Cannon would potentially oversee the case and said they were pleased by the possibility.

Delay financial disclosure to hide their graft and corruption...

Thomas, Alito delay financial disclosure reports

The other justices filed their annual forms, with John Roberts tweaking the description of his wife’s income and Ketanji Brown Jackson revealing a gift from Oprah.

By JOSH GERSTEIN and HAILEY FUCHS

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito delayed filing annual financial disclosure forms as the Supreme Court faces unprecedented scrutiny on ethics issues.

Legally mandated reports for seven of the current justices were made public Wednesday, while those for Thomas and Alito remained unreleased after they received extensions, a court spokesperson said. Justices are allowed a 90-day extension to file the forms. This is the fourth year in a row that Alito has received an extension.

The release of most of the annual disclosures came as the high court reels from reports about largely undisclosed luxury vacations Thomas took in recent years to far-flung locales on a private plane and yacht owned by a Texas real estate developer, Harlan Crow. Senate Democrats are looking into Thomas’ relationship with Crow as part of an examination into potential court-reform legislation.

Critics say Thomas’ acceptance of lavish vacations from Crow highlights the laxity of the ethics regime for justices, but Thomas’ defenders note that when similar complaints were leveled a decade ago about his relationship with Crow, a judicial committee found no willful omission on his part and appeared to bless his stance that the trips amounted to “personal hospitality” that did not need to be disclosed.

Spokespeople for the Supreme Court and for the office that handles disclosures for the federal judiciary did not offer any immediate explanation or documentation explaining the delay in Thomas and Alito’s reports, beyond noting that an extension was granted.

The disclosures submitted by the other seven justices revealed outside income from teaching and book deals, as well as reimbursements for international travel. The filings were published on the judiciary’s website (registration required) and were also posted publicly by the advocacy group Fix the Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted a change from previous years’ disclosures in how he reported income earned by his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, who is a legal recruiter. The chief justice’s new disclosure said that his wife received a base salary and commission from the recruiting firm Macrae in 2022. Previous filings had disclosed only a salary from the firm, and Roberts’ new report noted that her income had been “clarified over prior year reports.”

The clarification came after a former colleague of Jane Roberts complained to Congress that the chief justice had failed to adequately report his wife’s work, which involved public officials whose agencies had cases before the Supreme Court and who were seeking lucrative jobs in the private sector.

The complaints by the former colleague included a list of Jane Roberts’ alleged commissions, some of which were hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, it was unclear whether those sums were her own earnings or the total related billings of the firm for which she was working at the time.

The chief justice’s report also noted that previous filings had been amended to include an equity holding in Macrae, where Jane Roberts is a partner. The 2022 filing noted that the asset is worth between $100,001 and $250,000 — although she received no income from it — and had been “inadvertently omitted” from previous reports.

The newest member of the high court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, received a floral arrangement from Oprah Winfrey worth $1,200 and a designer dress and jacket worth more than $6,500 in connection with a photo shoot for Vogue Magazine. She also reported expert witness fees for her husband, a surgeon, although she did not disclose their source.

Several justices reported reimbursement for travel overseas, often to favored vacation spots, although the costs for the trips were not provided.

Justice Neil Gorsuch reported a two-week stay in Padua, Italy, last July as part of a program sponsored by George Mason University’s National Security Institute.

Rome was a popular destination for travel by the court’s members at the expense of educational institutions and others. Justice Brett Kavanaugh reported a four-day trip there last September to attend a conference of foreign and U.S. judges arranged by Notre Dame’s Kellogg Institute for International Studies. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted she took a six-day trip there for a conference held by the American College of Trial Lawyers.

While Alito’s report isn’t out yet, he also attended a Notre Dame-sponsored conference in Rome last July, making headlines for mocking foreign leaders who criticized his opinion overturning Roe v. Wade weeks earlier.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor disclosed a six-day trip to Edinburgh, Scotland, last July, paid for by New York University to take part in a conference for leaders in the legal field. She said she “extended my stay at my own expense for a private vacation in Scotland.”

Sotomayor also reported over $132,000 in royalties and option income related to her books and disclosed that some groups that invited her to speak also bought copies of her books.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who left the court last June but still files as a retired justice, reported being treated to a “fly-around” of France and Switzerland as part of his role on the jury for the Pritzker Architecture Prize.

Some changes this year were incremental, perhaps ornamental. Kagan clarified an ambiguity in earlier reports about real estate she owns in Washington, D.C. The small holding, which she estimated was worth between $15,000 and $50,000, is a parking space she rents out for between $2,500 and $5,000 a year.

Barrett’s latest report contains the name of the law firm where her husband is a partner, SouthBank Legal. It was deleted from the public version of her report for 2021, even though the firm’s website prominently features Jesse Barrett and publicly announced the opening of a Washington office that year, about a year after his wife was sworn in as a justice.

However, Barrett redacted the names of schools to which she owes college tuition, presumably for two or more of her seven children.

Under federal law, judges and justices can ask to withhold certain personal and family information from the financial disclosure reports released to the public.

And under a statute passed by Congress last year and signed by President Joe Biden, judges and justices can take action to force websites to take down details about a justice’s spouse, children, homes, cars and employment. Lawmakers said the measure was needed to fend off attacks on judges and their families, a threat highlighted by the fatal shooting of the son of Judge Esther Salas and the wounding of her husband in an attack at their New Jersey home in 2020.

Legal experts have questioned the constitutionality of the law, noting the frequency of legitimate debate about judges’ potential conflicts of interest. Under pressure from First Amendment advocates, Congress did add an exemption for bona fide news accounts before sending the bill on to Biden.

If it were anyone else, they would be in prison already serving life...

Bill Barr rips Trump over defense on secret documents

“Battle plans for an attack on another country or Defense Department documents about our capabilities are in no universe Donald J. Trump’s personal documents,” he said.

By DAVID COHEN

Former Attorney General Bill Barr attacked former President Donald Trump’s rationale when it came to his possession of top-secret material, saying there is no way Trump has a right to retain some of the material alleged to be in his possession.

“Battle plans for an attack on another country or Defense Department documents about our capabilities are in no universe Donald J. Trump’s personal documents. They are the government’s documents,” Barr said on “Fox News Sunday” in discussing last week’s 37-count indictment.

The former president has said repeatedly that he had a right to declassify and retain any documents from his four years in the White House.

Barr, who served in the Trump administration, said there was a distinction to be made between the president’s personal documents, such as notes taken at a meeting, and “very sensitive” documents “prepared by government agencies for the purpose of government action.” He also said almost anyone else in the country would have returned the documents if asked.

“This particular episode of trying to retrieve those documents, the government acted responsibly,” he said. “And it was Donald J. Trump who acted irresponsibly.”

The former attorney general also distinguished between Trump’s handling of documents and the processes that other former presidents used in handling the turnover of sensitive documents at the end of their terms, saying they had used secure and orderly procedures.

In differentiating this investigation from others that examined Trump’s conduct, Barr said he had defended Trump in the past — including in response to Alvin Bragg’s recent indictment in New York — but this case is different.

“This idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous,” Barr said.

“Yes, he’s been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims. I have been at his side defending against them when he is a victim. But this is much different. He is not a victim here. He was totally wrong that he had the right to have those documents. Those documents are among the most sensitive secrets the country has.”