CBS News
Judge in Trump 2020 election interference case rules records, evidence to be unsealed Friday
Judge Tanya Chutkan on Thursday denied former President Donald Trump’s request to delay until after the election the unsealing of court records and exhibits in the 2020 election interference case and said the court would release evidence submitted by the government on Friday.
In her five-page order, Chutkan said there was a presumption that there should be public access to “all facets of criminal court proceedings” and that Trump, in claiming the material should remain under seal, did not submit arguments relevant to any of the factors that would be considerations. Instead, Trump’s lawyers argued that keeping it under seal for another month “will serve other interests,” Chutkan wrote. “Ultimately, none of those arguments are persuasive.”
She had been tasked with deciding whether the appendix and brief submitted by special counsel Jack Smith earlier this month should be made available to the public, but with certain information kept secret. Chutkan allowed the brief to be made public last week, though it included redactions of names of alleged co-conspirators, campaign staff and White House officials, as well as certain references to grand jury proceedings.
Shortly after Trump lodged his opposition to any additional disclosures, Chutkan granted Smith’s request to file the appendix with his proposed redactions on the public docket. But she also granted Trump’s request to put her decision on hold for seven days while he explored his options for further litigation.
The special counsel indicated that much of the appendix contains sensitive materials that should be shielded from the public. That evidence, subject to a protective order issued at the start of the case last year, likely includes transcripts of testimony before a grand jury and FBI interviews.
Trump’s lawyers had said that Chutkan shouldn’t allow the release of any additional information now, claiming in a filing that the “asymmetric release of charged allegations and related documents during early voting creates a concerning appearance of election interference.”
Chutkan denied this would be an “asymmetric release,” pointing out that the court was not “‘limiting the public’s access to only one side.'” She said Trump was free to submit his “legal arguments and factual proffers regarding immunity at any point before the November 7, 2024 deadline.”
She also said it was Trump’s argument that posed the danger of interfering with the election, rather than the court’s actions.
“If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute — or appear to be — election interference,” Chutkan wrote. “The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its decision-making, rather than incorporating them as Defendant requests.”
She said that in a separate order Friday, the court would put the appendix with Smith’s proposed redactions in the public docket.
Proceedings in the case against Trump were revived in August after the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents are entitled to some immunity from criminal charges arising from official acts they took while they were in the White House.
Prosecutors sought a new indictment against Trump to comply with the high court’s decision that contained a more narrow set of allegations and removed references to his discussions with Justice Department officials. The court’s conservative majority found those interactions were off-limits for prosecutors.
Trump was initially charged in August 2023 with four counts stemming from what Smith alleged was a scheme to subvert the transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election. The former president still faces those same four charges in the new indictment and pleaded not guilty.
The two sides are now debating whether the conduct alleged in the slimmed-down indictment is protected by presidential immunity, a determination that will ultimately be made by Chutkan. Trump’s lawyers have said they will again seek to have the entire case thrown out on presidential immunity and other grounds.
Robert Legare and
contributed to this report.
CBS News
Delta will start serving Shake Shack on flights. But there’s a catch.
Shake Shack fans may soon have a new favorite airline, with Delta Air Lines serving up the restaurant chain’s burgers on flights out of Boston beginning in December.
The partnership kicks off on Dec. 1, and will only be available on flights out of Boston. Delta said it has plans to serve Shake Shack burgers on additional flights in other U.S. markets throughout 2025.
There’s a catch, however: the meals are only available to customers sitting in first class and on routes longer than 900 miles.
First class passengers can pre-select a Shake Shack Cheeseburger for their meal option, the airline said. Shake Shack’s full menu will not be available in the skies. Customers can choose their entrée via Delta’s app or its website starting seven days before a flight and ending 24 hours in advance of takeoff.
“A delicious cheeseburger is an iconic comfort food – our customers know that which is why burgers are one of the top ordered menu items we offer, and we’re thrilled to elevate the offering with Shake Shack,” Delta’s managing director of onboard service Stephanie Laster said in a statement.
The deal represents an extension of Delta’s long-term partnership with Union Square Hospitality Group (USHG) and Danny Meyer, the founder of Shake Shack.
What’s in the burger?
Shake Shack cheeseburgers feature a 100% Angus beef patty, topped with cheese and served on a toasted potato bun.
Customers can also select toppings including tomato, lettuce, and ShackSauce to create a signature ShackBurger on menus at Shake Shack locations nationwide. The meal also comes with chips, a Caesar salad, and a dark chocolate brownie.
In recent years, airlines have worked hard to revamp airplane food’s reputation. They’ve touted partnerships with gourmet food purveyors and top-notch restaurants to distinguish themselves and entice customers to fly with them.
CBS News
Dozens fall ill with norovirus on month-long cruise between Singapore and California
Dozens of people on a month-long cruise have fallen ill with norovirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday.
The Coral Princess, a 965-foot cruise ship operated by Princess Cruises, was sailing a month-long route between Singapore and Long Beach, California. The ship has over 2,700 passengers and crew members aboard.
Fifty-five passengers have reported being ill with norovirus, according to a news release from the CDC’s Vessel Sanitation Program. Fifteen crew members had the same illness, the CDC said. The first illness was reported on Nov. 9, and the ship docked in California on Nov. 17.
There were no delays to its arrival, and it embarked on a 16-day journey to Fort Lauderdale, Florida the next morning, according to the ship tracking site VesselFinder.
Norovirus is a highly contagious gastrointestinal illness that results in uncomfortable symptoms like diarrhea and vomiting. It spreads the most in enclosed spaces, including cruise ships. Most cases of the illness resolve within one to three days, according to the CDC. The totals of people ill are based on the amount of people who reported the illness at any time during the cruise, and they may not have all been sick at once, the CDC said.
In response to the outbreak, the Coral Princess crew increased cleaning and disinfection procedures, following their prevention and response plan, according to the CDC.
This is the eighth norovirus outbreak reported to the CDC in 2024, according to statistics provided by the agency. In 2023, 13 outbreaks were reported. On one Viking Cruises vessel, more than 13% of passengers and nearly 2% of crew members reported falling ill during a two-week journey.
CBS News
How Trump can use recess appointments to install controversial Cabinet picks — with or without the help of the Senate
Washington — President-elect Donald Trump has selected for some of the top roles in his administration controversial picks who may not win universal support from Republican senators. He can only afford to lose a few Republicans in the confirmation process, but he’s opened the door to the possibility of forgoing the traditional route altogether, utilizing a Constitutional power known as recess appointments to effectively bypass the Senate — and swiftly approve his nominees.
The possible strategy, raised by Trump in a post on social media last week, has generated mixed reviews among senators, who would stand to forfeit their key advice and consent role. And the president-elect made it something of a litmus test for Senate leadership as Republicans won majority control in the November elections.
What is a recess appointment?
Though the Senate is tasked with an advice and consent role in the confirmation process, the Constitution’s Recess Appointment Clause affords the president the ability to temporarily fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess, and appointees may stay in the role until the end of the following session.
The recess appointments power “was built for a time when the Senate was not meeting year round,” says Casey Burgat, the director of the Legislative Affairs Program at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.
“You were coming from all states, travel was a problem, and horses and carriages, and they would be out of session more often than they were in session,” Burgat says. ” And so to ensure that the government can continue its work, they gave the president appointment power to name, within recess, someone to take the place.”
More recently, recess appointments have been used by presidents including President George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — Bush and Clinton made over 100 recess appointments — although they were generally used to fill positions below the Cabinet level. In 2014, the Supreme Court weighed in on a challenge to a handful of Obama appointments, giving the Senate more authority to prevent the maneuver and determining that the chamber must be away for 10 days for recess appointments to occur.
In recent years, the Senate has used pro-forma sessions to gavel in even when the chamber is on recess in part to avoid recess appointments. And paired with the elimination of a 60-vote threshold for nominees in 2013 — making it easier for the majority to make confirmations — recess appointments haven’t been made in about a decade.
But that could change in Trump’s second term. Under the Constitution, both chambers have to agree to adjourn for three days or more. And at Trump’s urging, House and Senate Republicans, who are set to narrowly control both chambers in the new Congress, may agree to do so.
Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who last week was elected to serve as Senate majority leader in the new Congress, said “all options are on the table” to swiftly approve Trump’s nominees after he takes office, including recess appointments. He’s suggested that while the typical confirmation process is preferred, if Senate Democrats obstruct the confirmation proceedings, Republicans may have to resort to other options.
Still, pushback from just a handful of Republicans who oppose the recess appointment effort — which would undermine their ability to study nominees, request documents and have a hearing — could block the move to put the chamber in recess. But experts say Trump could move to adjourn Congress anyway.
Could Trump adjourn Congress to make recess appointments?
The Constitution outlines that a president may adjourn the House and Senate in the case of “Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment.” So if one chamber approves a resolution to adjourn and the other votes it down, Trump could theoretically weigh in and declare Congress in recess.
But some experts say that what constitutes a disagreement between the chambers could be interpreted differently, due to the unprecedented nature of the approach, questioning whether a simple lack of action from one chamber after the other approves a resolution to adjourn may be viewed as disagreement.
“It’s not clear at all how this would work,” says Matt Glassman, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, noting that the issue is something that almost certainly would result in litigation.
Glassman said in a scenario where the House tries to force the Senate out of session to make recess appointments, “it’s not clear to me the court is going to like the idea of the president and the House conspiring to end run the Senate on nominations.”
Trump is “threatening to turn the Constitution’s appointment process for Cabinet officers on its head” with the recess appointments strategy, Edward Whelan, a senior fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, warned in an op-ed in the Washington Post. He urged that House Speaker Mike Johnson, who would be a key player in Trump’s ability to unilaterally adjourn Congress, “can and should immediately put an end to this scheme.”
But Johnson on Sunday left the door open to the strategy, saying on Fox News when asked whether he would take steps to put Congress in recess that a president should be able to “choose his team,” and “if this thing bogs down, it would be a great detriment to the country.” But he acknowledged that he’s “very hopeful” the Senate will do its job and move the nominees along.
The move by the president to adjourn Congress to make recess appointments would create a new precedent, experts say, affecting the way presidents see presidential power going forward.
“When they may see a power deferred to them, they’re very reluctant to give it back going forward,” Burgat says. “The minute you cross the red line, all of a sudden, that red line looks like it didn’t matter at all in the first place.”