The Supreme Court justices have declined to weigh in on an appellate court ruling that rejected damages for woman whose home in a Dallas suburb was destroyed by a Texas SWAT team chasing man holding a 15-year-old girl hostage. However, two justices who fall on opposite ends of the political spectrum — Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch — disagreed with that decision.

The search for a runaway hostage

On July 25, 2020, a fugitive named Wesley Little kidnapped 15-year-old girl. Little led police in a high-speed car chase, and drove to the home of Vicki Baker while the girl was in Little’s custody. Little had been familiar with the home because he had previously worked there as a handyman. Deanna Cook, Baker’s adult daughter, answered the door. She Little and the girl with him from a posting about Little being on the run with a teen girl earlier that day.

Cook had been on the premises to help her mother ready the home for sale and there was a “For Sale” sign in the yard.

Ultimately, Cook called her mother, who in turn, contacted authorities. When the McKinney police arrived, officers set up a perimeter around the home. Little eventually released the girl, who reported to police that Little was armed, high on methamphetamine, and hiding in the attic. Later, Little told police that he knew he was going to die and planned to have a shoot-out with police.

Police unsuccessfully tried several tactics to get Little out of the home, including launching dozens of tear gas grenades into the house. Eventually, officers detonated explosives, which broke down the front and garage doors, and used a tank-like vehicle to bulldoze the home’s backyard fence. When police entered the house, they found that Little had taken his own life.

Damages and lawsuits

The tactics of police are not part of any dispute in the case, as they have been deemed necessary to prevent harm to themselves and the public. What is at issue, though, is whether Baker is entitled to compensation for the significant damages to her property resulting from the incident. The explosion left Baker’s dog permanently blind and deaf, and a remediation team was necessary clean the toxic gas from the home. Furthermore, ceiling fans, plumbing, floors, and bricks needed to be replaced.

The damage was not covered by Baker’s homeowner’s insurance due to the cause of the damage being deemed an “act of government.” Baker filed a claim for property damage with the city, but the city denied the claim in its entirety.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Taking ‘legal long shot,’ Trump’s lawyers…

Constitutional Law

Taking ‘legal long shot,’ Trump’s lawyers point to impeachment judgment clause in immunity argument

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 2, 2024, 2:16 pm CST

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are taking their immunity argument to a federal appeals court after the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 22 rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to grant certiorari before judgment to quickly decide the issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear arguments in the case next week, the New York Times reports. At issue is whether Trump is immune from Smith’s election-interference prosecution because it is based on actions that Trump took while in office.

Part of the lawyers’ argument focuses on the impeachment judgment clause, which says impeached parties who are convicted in the U.S. Senate can still be criminally prosecuted, according to the New York Times.

The impeachment judgment clause reads: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

Trump was acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

In a “legal long shot” argument, Trump’s lawyers contend that the clause “presupposes that a president who is not convicted may not be subject to criminal prosecution,” the New York Times says.

In a “slightly narrower but still audacious argument,” the lawyers argue that a president who is acquitted by the Senate can’t be prosecuted for the acquitted conduct, the New York Times reports.

Smith argued in his brief that the impeachment judgment clause constrains sanctions available to Congress but places no limits on post-impeachment criminal prosecution.

An acquittal in an impeachment trial isn’t necessarily based on a factual conclusion that the impeached party did not commit impeachment offenses, Smith said. He pointed to statements by at least 31 of the 43 senators who voted to acquit Trump that their vote was at least partly due to the fact that Trump was already out of office, and they didn’t think that there was jurisdiction for the trial.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington, D.C., had ruled against Trump on the immunity issue Dec. 1.

“Nothing in the impeachment judgment clause prevents criminal prosecution thereafter,” she wrote.

How Appealing linked to the brief for Trump and additional coverage, while the National Law Journal covered the Supreme Court’s rejection of Smith’s petition for certiorari before judgment.

See also:

“Federal appeals court narrows federal judge’s gag order in Trump election-interference case”

“As 1 judge temporarily lifts Trump gag order, another says he’s ‘way beyond’ warning stage”

“Trump’s election-subversion co-conspirators included DOJ official, 4 other lawyers, indictment says”