[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1315 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1315

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Supreme 
 Court of the United States should use its powers under the All Writs 
Act to protect its jurisdiction and bring the questions of Federal and 
constitutional law and equity before the Court for resolution with all 
                 deliberate speed and possible urgency.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2024

 Mr. Timmons submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Supreme 
 Court of the United States should use its powers under the All Writs 
Act to protect its jurisdiction and bring the questions of Federal and 
constitutional law and equity before the Court for resolution with all 
                 deliberate speed and possible urgency.

Whereas the United States is founded on the constitutional bedrock principles of 
        fair trials and equal justice for all before the law;
Whereas the use of weaponized prosecutions, ``lawfare'', political show trials, 
        two-tiered justice systems, and targeted political prosecutions are 
        hostile to the founding principles of the United States;
Whereas, in the case of The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, 
        a conviction on several counts was entered against former President and 
        presumptive Republican nominee for President, former President Donald J. 
        Trump, on May 20, 2024, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 
        New York County;
Whereas this conviction was the result of a targeted, dogged, abusive, 
        desperate, and politically motivated prosecution by Manhattan District 
        Attorney Alvin Bragg;
Whereas District Attorney Alvin Bragg resurrected a zombie case, declined by the 
        Federal prosecutors of the Southern District of New York and previously 
        declined by his own District Attorney's office;
Whereas the Federal Election Commission likewise found no reason to issue a 
        civil fine over the same allegations;
Whereas elected District Attorney Alvin Bragg resurrected this zombie case to 
        fulfill his electoral promise to New Yorkers to hold former President 
        Trump ``accountable'';
Whereas Alvin Bragg even went so far as to staff his office with zealous 
        activists, like former senior Biden Department of Justice official 
        Matthew Colangelo, who has previously targeted former President Trump, 
        to drive the prosecution;
Whereas the judge in the case, Juan Merchan, has and had a clear conflict of 
        interest in the case, with his daughter's role as president of Authentic 
        Campaigns, a firm known for representing and fundraising for Democrat 
        politicians, and whose Democrat clients have fundraised off of this 
        prosecution;
Whereas the New York State Commission on Judiciary Conduct privately cautioned 
        Judge Merchan in July over his own illegal and unethical political 
        donations to Biden and Democrats in 2020, while a sitting judge of the 
        New York State Supreme Court;
Whereas members of this chamber have filed a complaint against Judge Merchan 
        with the New York State Commission on Judiciary Conduct regarding these 
        improprieties;
Whereas throughout the pretrial and trial proceedings Judge Merchan consistently 
        demonstrated favor toward the prosecution through rulings and 
        unconstitutional gag orders on the presumptive Republican nominee for 
        President;
Whereas the unprecedented nature of the prosecution and overwhelming public 
        interest in the case of The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. 
        Trump is matter of public record and merits both judicial notice and 
        judicial intervention from superior Federal courts;
Whereas this conviction was based on novel, questionable, and untested legal 
        theories advanced for the purpose of a targeted prosecution against the 
        former President and presumptive Republican nominee;
Whereas there are serious, substantial, and dire questions of Federal and 
        constitutional law under the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth 
        Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment, requiring dispositive resolution 
        before the Court arising from multiple reversible, clear errors in the 
        case of The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump;
Whereas the charges against former President Trump were misdemeanors time-barred 
        by the New York statute of limitations;
Whereas the charges against former President Trump involved conduct allegations, 
        such as Federal elections law violations, that are the exclusive 
        jurisdiction of Federal authorities to enforce and resolve;
Whereas former President Trump was convicted based on uncharged conduct, ranging 
        from conspiracy to conceal a Federal election law violation and 
        falsification of business records, to tax law violations, which never 
        had to be proven at trial or specified;
Whereas that uncharged and unproven conduct provided the predicate for felony 
        escalation and the basis for avoiding the time-bar that would otherwise 
        have precluded the entire proceeding;
Whereas prosecutors were permitted to expressly state to the jury that it was 
        ``a fact'' that Federal election law violations occurred in this case at 
        the direction of former President Trump, even though that ``fact'' was 
        directly at issue in the case and required a factual finding by the jury 
        to maintain the felony escalation theory;
Whereas the jury instructions in the case were constitutionally deficient and 
        legally flawed by allowing for a nonunanimous, or ``4-4-4'' verdict on 
        the uncharged conduct, despite the clear command of the Supreme Court 
        that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments ``require[] a unanimous verdict 
        to convict a defendant of a serious offense,'' in Ramos v. Louisiana, 
        590 U.S. 83 (2020);
Whereas the verdict form returned in the case did not even ask for the 
        specificity of jury findings of the various uncharged conduct theories 
        found in the case, denying the former President his right to fair notice 
        and confrontation;
Whereas the conviction was obtained in part through the testimony of a 
        discredited witness with a personal animus toward former President 
        Trump, admitted felon and disbarred attorney Michael D. Cohen;
Whereas the conviction was obtained in part through the entry of other highly 
        prejudicial and immaterial testimony and evidence that never should have 
        been admitted;
Whereas former President Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for 
        President of the United States, the highest office in the Nation, and 
        the occupant of which is a matter of utmost public importance;
Whereas the Republican Convention to nominate a Presidential candidate is on 
        July 11, 2024, and the Presidential election is November 5, 2024;
Whereas the felony conviction of a presumptive major party nominee for President 
        can cause confusion for candidate ballot access, depending on State law 
        and despite the opinion of the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, No. 
        23-719 (2023) (reversing the removal of Donald Trump from Colorado's 
        Republican primary ballot);
Whereas the politically motivated prosecution and conviction draws into question 
        the integrity of Federal Presidential elections, of which the government 
        ``indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity . . 
        .''Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 
        231 (1989);
Whereas the bias of both the judge and prosecutor in this case, as well as the 
        numerous procedural flaws, raises dire issues of judicial impartiality, 
        the appearance of propriety, and faith in the judicial system;
Whereas the ``principles of equity'' require speedy resolution of legal issues 
        that could affect voter decision and information at ``a time 
        sufficiently early to permit the holding of elections . . . without 
        great difficulty'', cf. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585-86 (1964);
Whereas the public interest is in final and Supreme disposition of the 
        substantial questions of Federal law raised in the case;
Whereas the Supreme Court has previously intervened in order to provide final 
        and dispositive resolution as to questions of law and equity arising 
        from essential and crucial Presidential electoral deadlines, e.g., Bush 
        v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000); and
Whereas under the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. 1651) ``the Supreme Court and all 
        courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or 
        appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to 
        the usages and principles of law'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) immediate resolution of these matters is necessary for 
        the people of the United States to make informed decisions 
        about the upcoming Presidential election, would be necessary 
        and appropriate in aid of the respective jurisdictions of the 
        Federal courts, is demanded by the principles of equity, and is 
        agreeable to the usages and principles of law; and
            (2) with all due deference to the respective coequal 
        branches of government, that the Supreme Court of the United 
        States should use its powers under the All Writs Act to protect 
        its jurisdiction and bring the questions of Federal and 
        constitutional law and equity before the Court for resolution 
        with all deliberate speed and possible urgency.
                                 <all>