Week in a Nutshell, 8/9/24

August 9, 2024

Week in a Nutshell, 8/9/24

(Photo via Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images).

Here is some of the legal news making the headlines this week:

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a long-shot effort by the state of Missouri to block New York from enforcing a gag order and sentencing former President Donald Trump in his Manhattan criminal case.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey petitioned the Court to release Trump from the gag order and delay Trump’s sentencing until at least after the 2024 election in November. In his court filing, Bailey argued that the gag order and sentencing “unlawfully impede the ability of electors to fulfill their federal functions” and “violate the First Amendment rights of Missouri citizens to listen to the campaign speech of a specific individual on specific topics.” Bailey’s request invoked the Court’s “exclusive jurisdiction” over lawsuits between states.
In response, New York Attorney General Letitia James argued that Missouri failed to demonstrate that the Trump prosecution has sufficiently harmed Missouri’s state interests, as required to bring the lawsuit. Instead, James argued, “Missouri is clearly and impermissibly seeking to further the individual interests of former President Trump.”
In a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court rejected Missouri’s request. However, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have allowed Missouri to continue the challenge by filing further briefing on the matter.
Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on September 18. Before that, Judge Juan Merchan is expected to issue a ruling on whether the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity has any bearing on Trump’s conviction.

A federal district judge in the District of Columbia ruled that Google is an illegal monopoly.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued his ruling after a nine-week trial, which started in September 2023. The Trump administration first filed this case in late 2020, and the Biden administration continued the litigation.
In his decision, Mehta wrote, “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” The judge ruled that Google violated federal antitrust laws through its contracts for advertising and search engine exclusivity. Mehta reasoned that Google’s aggressive price hikes under these agreements have quashed competition in the search engine market. Mehta continued, “The only apparent constraint on Google’s pricing decisions are potential advertiser outcry and bad publicity. Google, however, has managed to avoid those pitfalls by ramping up its pricing incrementally….Many advertisers do not even realize that Google is responsible for the changes in price. Thus, through barely perceptible and rarely announced tweaks to its ad auctions, Google has increased text ads prices without fear of losing advertisers.”
Next in this case, Mehta will issue his decision on how to remedy Google’s antitrust violations. Before that, Google will likely appeal the ruling. One potential remedy would be to void Google’s exclusivity contracts with Apple and other phone companies. But doing so could end up harming Apple more than it would harm Google, since Google pays Apple $20 billion annually to make its search engine the default on its devices.

Week In a Nutshell is part of the free weekly CAFE Brief newsletter.