1. Home
2. Daily News
3. SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein wins pretrial…

Criminal Justice

SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein wins pretrial release after denying moving millions in crypto

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 13, 2025, 3:37 pm CST

SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein has won his pretrial release a second time after offering proof to contravene prosecutors’ claims that he moved millions of dollars in cryptocurrency while facing tax fraud charges.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan of the District of Maryland ordered Goldstein’s release Thursday after finding that the former U.S. Supreme Court litigator had plausibly denied the crypto allegations. Sullivan nonetheless imposed additional conditions on release to bar access to computers and internet-capable devices absent prior approval. Goldstein will also have to disclose all cryptocurrency wallets that he owns or to which he has access.

Bloomberg Law, Law360 and PokerNews have coverage.

Goldstein is a former “ultrahigh-stakes” poker player, prosecutors have said. In a Jan. 16 indictment, he was accused of understating gambling winnings and concealing cryptocurrency transactions on tax returns, using his boutique law firm to help cover his debts, putting women he was pursuing on the law-firm payroll, and failing to report money owed in debts and taxes when he applied for a mortgage.

Goldstein was arrested on Monday after federal prosecutors alleged that Goldstein violated the terms of his release by failing to disclose two cryptocurrency wallets. Prosecutors said Goldstein received $8 million in crypto through the wallets and sent another $6 million, all within the span of five days in February. The wallets were “unhosted,” which makes it impossible for prosecutors to subpoena a cryptocurrency exchange, a bank or a financial institution to learn the owner.

Prosecutors thought that Goldstein owned the wallets because of messages dating back to 2023 indicating that he had used them to transfer crypto. But Goldstein offered “a plausible explanation” that he had instructed others in the past to use the wallets in a way that benefited him, even though the wallets were never actually his, Sullivan said.

Lawyers from Munger, Tolles & Olson sought the release of Goldstein, their new client, in a Feb. 11 emergency motion. Attached to the motion were cellphone messages supporting Goldstein’s claim that he didn’t own the wallets.

“The government has made a mistake,” they wrote.

While Sullivan said he was no longer convinced, by clear and convincing evidence, that Goldstein violated the terms of his release, he is still “highly suspicious that Mr. Goldstein has used cryptocurrency while on conditions of release.”

“There is ample evidence that Mr. Goldstein has been and remains a sophisticated and frequent user of cryptocurrency for years,” Sullivan wrote. “He has used cryptocurrency—or directed others to use it on his behalf—to pay for everything from gambling losses to luxury watches for multiple women. … And it now even appears that Mr. Goldstein currently has cryptocurrency accounts—besides [the two wallets mentioned by prosecutors]—that he controls, and of which he did not inform his supervising pretrial services officer.”

Prosecutors had alleged that Goldstein transferred millions in cryptocurrency even as he claimed to be “destitute” in a bid to substitute properties owned by relatives as collateral to assure his future court appearances. Goldstein didn’t want to use the home that he owns with his wife, SCOTUSblog co-founder and reporter Amy Howe.

Goldstein had referenced a pretrial services report that said he had a negative net worth of more than $3.3 million in a motion that he filed under his signature Feb. 5. Goldstein said he wanted to use the equity in his home to pay for his lawyers.

Yet one of Goldstein’s bank accounts has a balance of $250,000, and he has been spending $20,000 per month for an apartment in Dallas, $5,000 per month for a housekeeper, and $8,000 per month on a personal assistant, prosecutors said.

See also:

Indicted SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein can’t switch collateral, magistrate judge rules

Poker-playing SCOTUSblog founder has net worth of negative $3.3M, criminal court document says

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Did DC Circuit ‘put an asterisk next to’…

Constitutional Law

Did DC Circuit ‘put an asterisk next to’ decision denying Trump immunity? Court keeps case on speedy path but implies limits

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 7, 2024, 12:49 pm CST

The prosecution of former President Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election could stay on a speedy path as a result of deadlines set Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The appeals court said Trump must file any request for a stay of its immunity decision with the U.S. Supreme Court by Feb. 12, report the Washington Post, CNN, Just Security and the New York Times.

If Trump instead seeks a hearing before the full appeals court, the case can still return to the trial judge after Feb. 12, the appeals court indicated.

The appeals court’s Feb. 6 opinion held that Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election were not part of his official duties, and he did not have immunity.

“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results,” the D.C. Circuit said. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”

The appeals court concluded that the interest in criminal accountability outweighs the potential risks of chilling presidential actions. The D.C. Circuit cautioned, however, that its analysis “is specific to the case before us.” In the eighth footnote, the appeals court added, “We do not address policy considerations implicated in the prosecution of a sitting president or in a state prosecution of a president, sitting or former.”

A columnist for the Washington Post noted the “specific to the case” wording and concluded that the appeals court is “trying to put an asterisk next to its ruling. It is hinting—as the Supreme Court hinted in Bush v. Gore—that this is an extraordinary case and that in other cases, the same logic might not apply.”

The per curiam opinion was written by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, and two appointees of President Joe Biden, Judge J. Michelle Childs and Judge Florence Y. Pan. Biden had once considered Childs for a Supreme Court nomination.

If Trump asks the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the high court agrees, the Supreme Court could act quickly, or the justices could take their time, the New York Times reports.

One possibility is for the Supreme Court to grant the stay, with or without limitations. If there is no time limit, Trump would have 90 days to file a cert petition, according to Just Security. Or the Supreme Court could place a time limit on the stay, which would dissolve unless Trump files a cert petition within the time period.

Another possibility is for the Supreme Court to treat a stay application as a petition for certiorari and grant immediate review.

“We consider this a more likely option,” according to Just Security.

If the Supreme Court requires expedited briefing, oral arguments could be in March, and an opinion might be issued a month later, the blog said.

If Trump loses and a trial happens in July, it could conclude by October.

“Of course, it is within the Supreme Court’s power not to enforce an expedited appellate schedule,” Just Security pointed out. “If so, they could conceivably wait until the end of this year’s term in late June to issue its decision. Under that approach, the trial would not begin until approximately Oct. 1 and would not conclude until around Jan. 1, 2025.”