Justices heard immunity arguments – and the conservative majority seemed determined to talk about anything but the case at hand

It took two hours and 24 minutes for the elephant in the room to be mentioned at Thursday’s US supreme court hearing. “The special counsel has expressed some concern for speed, and wanting to move forward,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

That was shorthand for the gargantuan stakes at play in Trump v United States. The court was being asked to consider one of the most consequential prosecutions in US history – the four federal charges brought against former president Donald Trump accusing him of attempting to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election – and whether the case can conceivably go to trial.

US supreme court hears three hours of oral arguments on whether ex-president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution

The US supreme court on Thursday heard roughly three hours of oral arguments about whether Donald Trump enjoyed absolute immunity from criminal prosecution because the acts included in the indictment alleging he plotted to subvert the 2020 election involved his duties as president.

The court did not seem inclined to grant total immunity to Trump. But a majority of the justices suggested there should be some level of protection , and expressed an interest in having a lower court decide whether the indictment included “official” acts that could be expunged.

Surprise reversal of producer’s New York conviction led to anger from stars and accusers, including Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino

Hollywood has reacted with shock to the news that the disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein ’s rape conviction has been overturned by a New York court .

The fallen movie mogul was sentenced to 23 years in 2020 for two sex crimes, a decision that a court of appeals has now called the result of an unfair trial.

The former president’s motion for a new trial was denied and his argument deemed ‘entirely without merit’

A federal judge on Thursday upheld the verdict and award of more than $83m to the writer E Jean Carroll in a defamation case against Donald Trump after he called her a liar for accusing him of sexually assaulting her.

Judge Lewis Kaplan, a senior district judge on the US district court for the southern district of New York, denied Trump’s motion for a new trial and affirmed that Carroll suffered harm caused by Trump’s 2019 public statements.

Court finds judge prejudiced ex-mogul with ‘egregious’ improper rulings at landmark trial

New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that were not part of the case.

The state court of appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures – an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein. The court ordered a new trial. His accusers could again be forced to relive their traumas on the witness stand.

Idaho’s law requires doctors to treat pregnant women’s health as disposable – and the loss of their lives as an acceptable risk

The risk of stating plainly what Idaho argued at the US supreme court on Wednesday morning is that it is so sadistic and extreme that people might not believe you. Idaho has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. Prohibiting all abortions at any stage of gestation, with no exceptions for rape or incest, the Idaho law allows doctors to perform abortions in cases where the life – but not “merely” the health – of the pregnant woman is at risk.

In practice, this has wound up being a ban on abortions needed to save women’s lives: according to Idaho hospitals, six pregnant women experiencing medical emergencies have had to be airlifted across state lines to hospitals in states with life and health exemptions in the months since Idaho began enforcing its abortion ban. One way to describe this state of affairs is to say that Idaho’s abortion law has come into conflict with medical best practice. Another way to describe it is to say that the law has forced pregnant women to flee the state for their lives.

Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist

The former president claims immunity in his federal election subversion case – is the court indulging his bid for a delay?

The US supreme court will on Thursday hear oral arguments in Donald Trump v United States , the former president’s appeal in his federal election subversion case, in which he claims presidents are immune from prosecution for acts committed in office.

In briefs to the court, lawyers for Trump said “a denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future president”.

With the panel selected, Donald Trump’s trial can enter its next stage, with opening arguments expected on Monday

• US politics – latest updates

Donald Trump’s hush-money trial gained momentum on Friday afternoon with the conclusion of jury selection.

Five alternate jurors were chosen on Friday, following Thursday’s proceedings when the 12 jurors and one alternate juror were picked.

A guide to Trump’s hush-money trial – so far

The key arguments prosecutors will use against Trump

How will Trump’s trial work?

From Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels: the key players

If court curtails use of statute in connection with January 6, it could eliminate two of the four charges against Donald Trump

The US supreme court expressed concern on Tuesday with prosecutors using an obstruction statute to charge hundreds of January 6 Capitol riot defendants, with the justices leaning towards a position that could jeopardize those prosecutions and the criminal case against Donald Trump .

The Trump case was not mentioned at the argument. But a decision curtailing the use of the obstruction statute in connection with the Capitol attack could eliminate two of the four charges against the former president.