H.Res. 1315

[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>