The Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act: A Path to Ending a 70-Year Deadlock

By: Alan Hunchan Jeong

The Korean Peninsula is one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world, with an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty marking the fallible pause of the 1950–1953 Korean War. While the 1953 Armistice Agreement halted active hostilities, it did not officially end the war. As a result, the United States, South Korea, and North Korea remain technically at war. Most notably, South Korea requires every male citizen—many of whom can be easily encountered on U.S. college campuses – to serve in the military, highlighting the seriousness and urgency of geopolitical tensions in a divided nation amid the unresolved war. Decades of hostilities and diplomatic setbacks have left the region in a prolonged state of limbo.

To promote a peaceful resolution regarding the hostile conditions on the Korean Peninsula, Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) has repeatedly introduced the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act since the 117th Congress. Congressman Sherman emphasizes that the ongoing conflict on the Korean Peninsula is not in the best interests of the United States or its citizens with familial ties in North and South Korea, stressing the urgent need for serious diplomatic efforts to establish peace between the two Koreas. [1] The legislation promotes dialogue and a binding peace agreement between the United States, South Korea, and North Korea. It calls for reassessing U.S. policies that currently impose strict limits on engagement with North Korea.

The bill proposes several key initiatives aimed at promoting peace on the Korean Peninsula. Firstly, it seeks to advance diplomatic efforts among South Korea, North Korea, and the United States to formally end the Korean War and to establish U.S.-North Korea liaison offices. [2] The legislation requires the U.S. Department of State to submit a report to Congress outlining “a clear roadmap for achieving permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula;” this report would include diplomatic strategies and recommendations for advancing engagement with both North Korea and South Korea to reach a “binding peace agreement constituting a formal and final end to the state of war between North Korea, South Korea, and the United States.” [3] By providing a framework for dialogue and permanent peace, the bill seeks to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts for engagement with North Korea that have largely stalled since the breakdown of the 2019 U.S.-North Korea talks in Hanoi, Vietnam. The failed attempt of the U.S.-North Korea Hanoi Summit reinforces the need for a detailed framework on how to approach North Korea. The backdrop for improving relations still exists, however, as the U.S.-North Korea joint statement signed in Singapore in 2018 included an agreement to “establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.” [4] A binding peace agreement and the respective liaison offices would not only enhance U.S.-North Korea relations by facilitating engagement that serves U.S. national interests but also advance greater humanitarian causes.

A second provision of the bill calls for a review of the travel restrictions currently in place for U.S. nationals wishing to visit North Korea. [5] Since 2017, the U.S. government has imposed stringent travel bans preventing Americans from entering North Korea due to security concerns, particularly following the tragic case of Otto Warmbier, a U.S. college student who died after being detained by North Korean authorities. [6] While these restrictions were enacted for citizen’s safety, the bill recognizes the “compelling humanitarian considerations” to reunite U.S. citizens with family members left in North Korea, as around 100,000 Americans have relatives there – at least to allow them to attend a funeral, burial, or commemoration of their loved ones. [7]

Despite its grand initiatives, the bill faces significant challenges. Opponents have argued that the legislation is premature and poses serious security risks to South Korea, as it could lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, the weakening of the U.S.-ROK alliance, the dissolution of the United Nations Command, and the easing of sanctions on North Korea without ensuring its denuclearization. [8] To address critics’ concerns that the bill’s enactment could lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, the updated version of the legislation introduced in the 118th Congress includes Section 6, Rule of Construction: “Nothing in this Act may be construed to affect the status of United States Armed Forces stationed in South Korea or any other foreign country.” [9] Accordingly, Seoul’s stances on engagement with North Korea and a peace agreement are determining factors. While past South Korean administrations – particularly under Presidents Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in – actively pursued engagement with North Korea through several summit meetings with its leaders, the current conservative administration has taken a hawkish stance on North Korea. [10]

However, it is important to consider that engagement does not necessarily mean appeasement; rather, it provides an invaluable opportunity to manage tensions, prevent conflict, and gradually build trust – an essential strategy for resolving geopolitical conflicts worldwide in the name of national interest and realpolitik. A notable example is the U.S.-China rapprochement during the Sino-Soviet split of the Cold War, which advanced U.S. national interests and contributed to the eventual decline of the Soviet Union. Policymakers must carefully navigate these diplomatic dynamics to ensure that any peace initiative aligns with the greater security interests, as losing security means losing everything.

As the bill continues to progress through Congress – it has garnered bipartisan support with 52 cosponsors by the end of the 118th Congress – its success will depend on bipartisan cooperation, strategic diplomatic efforts, and public advocacy. [11] The legislation reflects a growing recognition that the status quo – where the Korean War remains unresolved – may no longer be a sustainable long-term approach. If passed, the Act could mark a grand step toward achieving peace not only on the Korean Peninsula but also across the greater Indo-Pacific, highlighting that diplomacy remains a feasible path even in the face of long-standing geopolitical challenges. While challenges remain, the bill underscores the importance of shifting U.S. policy from one of confrontation to one of pragmatic diplomacy and engagement.

Notes:

1. “Congressman Brad Sherman Leads Colleagues in Re-Introducing the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” Congressman Brad Sherman, March 1, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025, https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-brad-sherman-leads-colleagues-in-re-introducing-the-peace-on.

2. “Text - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” Congress.gov, March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/text.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Department of State, “United States Passports Invalid for Travel To, In, or through the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK),” Federal Register, August 8, 2024, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/08/2024-17519/united-states-passports-invalid-for-travel-to-in-or-through-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea.

7. “Text - H.R.1369.”

8. Hyeon-seok Gang, “[bareondae] ‘hanbando pyeonghwabeobane’un sigisangjo [[Speakers’ Corner] The ‘Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act’ Is Premature],” Koreatimes.com, February 12, 2025, accessed February 15, 2025, http://www.koreatimes.com/article/20250212/1551631.

9. “Text - H.R.1369.”

10. Gagan Hitkari, “Why South Korea Needs to Reassess Its Hardline Stance against Pyongyang,” South China Morning Post, November 10, 2024, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/opinion/asia-opinion/article/3285856/why-south-korea-needs-reassess-its-hardline-stance-against-pyongyang.

11. “Cosponsors - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” Congress.gov, March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/cosponsors.

Bibliography:

Congress.gov. “Cosponsors - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/cosponsors.

Congress.gov. “Text - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/text.

Congressman Brad Sherman. “Congressman Brad Sherman Leads Colleagues in Re-Introducing the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” March 1, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025. https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-brad-sherman-leads-colleagues-in-re-introducing-the-peace-on.

Department of State. “United States Passports Invalid for Travel To, In, or through the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).” Federal Register, August 8, 2024, accessed February 15, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/08/2024-17519/united-states-passports-invalid-for-travel-to-in-or-through-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea.

Gang, Hyeon-seok. “[bareondae] ‘hanbando pyeonghwabeobane’un sigisangjo [[Speakers’ Corner] The ‘Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act’ Is Premature],” Koreatimes.com, February 12, 2025, accessed February 15, 2025. http://www.koreatimes.com/article/20250212/1551631.

The Supreme Court & Affirmative Action: A Way Forward, or Not?

By: Asher Moss

Edited By: Jack Pacconi and Anna Dellit

On March 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy introduced Executive Order 10925 and with it the concept of “affirmative action,” the idea that organizations should take steps to recruit and advance historically marginalized groups. [1]

Seventeen years later, the Supreme Court ruled in University of California v. Bakke (1978) that affirmative action would now be subjected to the strict scrutiny doctrine: policies are presumed invalid unless the government can prove it achieves a “compelling state interest.” Justice Lewis Powell writes for the majority, “diversity that furthers a compelling state interest encompasses… an array of qualifications,” and “race or ethnic background may be deemed a ‘plus’ in a particular applicant's file.” [2] Essentially, while Bakke found that affirmative action satisfied the strict scrutiny requirement, it laid the groundwork for fiery subsequent legal debate.

For the most part, affirmative action in admissions was left intact for forty-five years. However, in 2023, the Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that all forms of race-conscious admissions violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both policies ban government-funded entities from engaging in racial discrimination. [3]

Writing for the majority, Justice Roberts established the factors that led to the decision: First, affirmative action policies do not serve a compelling state interest and thus don’t meet the strict scrutiny threshold. Second, universities used an applicant’s race in a “negative manner:” the policy supposedly resulted in disadvantages for other students. Third, “the absence of meaningful endpoints:” the majority's argument that any near-term rollback is unlikely due to the established metrics of governments and universities despite the initial temporary intent of affirmative action. [4]

Since the 2023 decision, universities have grappled with how to further their diversity goals within the Court’s parameters. Harvard Admissions replaced its open-ended essay with short answer questions aimed at forcing students to discuss specific aspects of their life experiences. [5] Many other elite universities have followed suit in grabbing onto Roberts’ lifeline: universities may consider an “applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life.” [6]  Nevertheless, Harvard saw a 4% decrease in African American students in the Class of 2028 compared to 2027. [7]

The Stanford Center for Racial Justice puts forth other options that can boost racial diversity considering the ruling, including rolling back legacy admissions, implementing test-optional policies, recruiting from specific areas, and percent plans. [8] However, these methods are not proven to unilaterally affect the pool of admitted students. For example, studies on percent plans have found that most students who are admitted through the plan would have been admitted regardless. [9]

Without a clear path for universities, the focus has shifted to inequalities in PK-12. In fall 2021, 42% of Asian students and 34% of White students attended low-poverty public schools. Only 13% of Asian students and 7% of White students attended high-poverty schools. For Black and Hispanic students, the pattern was reversed: only 12% of Black and Hispanic students attended low-poverty schools, while 37% of Black students and 38% of Hispanic students attended high-poverty schools. [10] By the time Black and Hispanic students reach the admissions process, they face disadvantages shaped both by the educational disparities just discussed and by broader systemic inequalities. Standardizing the courses offered at public high schools to better align with college entry requirements could help address some of these disparities and make it easier for Black and Hispanic students to compete on equal footing. [11] However, these programs would require unprecedented cross-state cooperation and funding prioritization from the federal government, both of which are unlikely to occur soon. 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s overturning of decades of precedent that recognized not just the benefits of racial diversity in universities to students, but the enormous barriers that marginalized groups have had to overcome to gain access to higher education, has forced admissions officers to reconsider their approach. They must now explore new outreach, review, and evaluation practices to ensure they continue to build a well-rounded, academically qualified, and satisfactorily diverse class of students.

Notes:

1. University of California, Irvine: Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, “A Brief History of Affirmative Action,” accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.oeod.uci.edu/policies/aa_history.php.

2. Lewis Powell, University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (Supreme Court of the United States, June 28, 1978).

3. John Roberts, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (Supreme Court of the United States, June 29, 2023).

4. Ibid.

5. Michelle Amponsah and Rahem Hamid, “Harvard Overhauls College Application in Wake of Affirmative Action Decision,” The Harvard Crimson, August 3, 2023, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/8/3/harvard-admission-essay-change/.

6. Roberts, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

7. Elyse Goncalves and Matan Josephy, “Harvard Reports Drop in Black Enrollment,” The Harvard Crimson, September 11, 2024, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/11/harvard-black-enrollment-drops/.

8. Hoang Pham et al., “Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard FAQ: Navigating the Evolving Implications of the Court’s Ruling,” Stanford Center for Racial Justice, December 12, 2023, https://law.stanford.edu/2023/12/12/students-for-fair-admissions-v-harvard-faq-navigating-the-evolving-implications-of-the-courts-ruling/.

9. Bryan Cook, “How to Achieve Diverse Access to College in a Post-Affirmative Action World,” Center on Education Data and Policy (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, September 2023), 10.

10. “Disparities in Students’ Exposure to Racial, Ethnic, and Economic Segregation,” National Center for Education Statistics, August 2023, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/equity/indicator_d8.asp.

11. Cook, “How to Achieve Diverse Access to College in a Post-Affirmative Action World,” 12–13.

Bibliography:

Amponsah, Michelle, and Rahem Hamid. “Harvard Overhauls College Application in Wake of Affirmative Action Decision.” The Harvard Crimson. Harvard University, August 3, 2023. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/8/3/harvard-admission-essay-change/.

Cook, Bryan. “How to Achieve Diverse Access to College in a Post-Affirmative Action World.” Center on Education Data and Policy. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, September 2023.

Goncalves, Elyse, and Matan Josephy. “Harvard Reports Drop in Black Enrollment.” The Harvard Crimson. Harvard University, September 11, 2024. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/11/harvard-black-enrollment-drops/.

National Center for Education Statistics. “Disparities in Students’ Exposure to Racial, Ethnic, and Economic Segregation,” August 2023. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/equity/indicator_d8.asp.

Pham, Hoang, Imani Nokuri, Fatima Dahir, and Mira Joseph. “Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard FAQ: Navigating the Evolving Implications of the Court’s Ruling.” Stanford Center for Racial Justice. Stanford Law School, December 12, 2023. https://law.stanford.edu/2023/12/12/students-for-fair-admissions-v-harvard-faq-navigating-the-evolving-implications-of-the-courts-ruling/.

Powell, Lewis. University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (Supreme Court of the United States, June 28, 1978).

Roberts, John. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (Supreme Court of the United States, June 29, 2023).

U.S Department of Labor. “Affirmative Action.” Department of Labor. United States Federal Government, 2019. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.

University of California, Irvine: Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity. “A Brief History of Affirmative Action.” www.oeod.uci.edu. University of California. 2024. https://www.oeod.uci.edu/policies/aa_history.php.

The World as Argentina’s Oyster: Understanding Article 118 and Universal Jurisdiction

By: Ethan Abisellan

Edited By: Faith Magiera and Anna Dellit

In October 2008, in Spain, Judge Baltasar Garzón opened an investigation on alleged crimes against humanity committed under the Franco regime. However, the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish National Court quickly blocked the investigation, citing the currently in effect 1977 Amnesty Law, which guarantees impunity to those who participated in crimes during the Spanish Civil War under the Franco regime. [1] Frustrated with this ruling, relatives of victims traveled to Argentina seeking justice. Soon after, on April 14th, 2010, a criminal complaint was filed before Argentine courts alleging crimes against humanity in Spain perpetrated by the Franco regime. Since then, “la querella Argentina” – “the Argentine complaint” – has grown into an ongoing 14 year investigation withover 330 complaints filed on behalf of victims.[2]

But, why Argentina?

Article 118 of the Argentine Constitution grants Argentine courts jurisdiction over cases “committed outside the territory of the Nation against public international law”, conferring Argentine courts with a unique universal jurisdiction. [3] Essentially, any crimes in violation of international conventions can be prosecuted in Argentina. Cases like the Argentine Complaint ground their investigations on violations of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which established four international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. [4]

The Argentine Complaint against Spain marked the first time Article 118 was invoked to prosecute crimes against humanity outside Argentina. Since then, human rights activists from around the globe – often with the help of their Argentine counterparts – have brought about dozens of cases accusing countries of international crimes. Currently, there are ongoing investigations regarding international crimes allegedly committed in China, Colombia, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and more – all thanks to Argentina’s universal jurisdiction. [5]

The effectiveness of universal jurisdiction, however, seems to be painfully minimal. The demands, findings, and verdicts of Argentine courts hold no real enforcement outside of Argentina. The attempts of Argentine courts to exact justice can be written off by other countries as encroaching on sovereignty or simply denied outright, as in the case of Spain. For example, Judge Maria Romilda Servini – who presided over the Francoist investigation – issued arrest and extradition warrants against 20 senior officials of the Franco regime in late 2014, to no avail. [6]

Although it may not have any real enforcement or pressure to effect change, Argentina’s universal jurisdiction demonstrates the nation’s unwavering commitment to international law and human rights. This commitment gives human rights activists – especially those living in oppressive regimes – avenues to express dissenting opinions, expose human rights violations, and pursue justice in impartial, competent courts. [7] Moreover, universal jurisdiction might have powerful implications on guiding Argentine foreign policy and raising awareness of human rights violations on an international scale.

Notes:

1. Garcia, “Overview of the Argentine Lawsuit against the Crimes of the Franco Regime:Outcomes and Challenges,” 2.

2. Íñigo Álvarez, Laura, and Aintzane Márquez Tejón, “Ten Years of the Argentine Inquiry into Franco-Era Crimes: What Has Been Achieved?”

3. Digital Library of the Ministry of Justice, “Constitution of the Argentine Republic,” 20.

4. International Criminal Court, “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” 3.

5. Uyghur Human Rights Project. “Landmark Decision as Argentina Court of Cassation Reverses Judge’s Decision Not to Open Uyghur Case for Crimes against Humanity and Genocide.”

6. Garcia, “Overview of the Argentine Lawsuit against the Crimes of the Franco Regime:Outcomes and Challenges,” 3.

7. Amnesty International, “Argentina: Amnesty International Makes Submission to Argentine Criminal Court’s Investigation into Crimes against Humanity in Venezuela.” 

Bibliography:

Amnesty International. “Argentina: Amnesty International Makes Submission to Argentine Criminal Court’s Investigation into Crimes against Humanity in Venezuela.” Amnesty International, 27 Feb. 2024, www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2024/02/amicus-curiae-argentina-venezuela-crimes-against-humanity-universal-jurisdiction-human-rights/.

Digital Library of the Ministry of Justice. CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE NATION, www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/Argentina-Constitution.pdf.

Garcia, Alejandro Lerena. “Overview of the Argentine Lawsuit against the Crimes of the Franco Regime: Outcomes and Challenges.” Journal of Political Sciences & Public Affairs, 2021, www.longdom.org/open-access-pdfs/overview-of-the-argentine-lawsuit-against-the-crimes-of-the-franco-regime-outcomes-and-challenges.pdf.

International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2021, www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf.

Íñigo Álvarez, Laura, and Aintzane Márquez Tejón. “Ten Years of the Argentine Inquiry into Franco-Era Crimes: What Has Been Achieved?” Oxford Human Rights Hub, 27 Oct. 2020, ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/ten-years-of-the-argentine-inquiry-into-franco-era-crimes-what-has-been-achieved/.

Uyghur Human Rights Project. “Landmark Decision as Argentina Court of Cassation Reverses Judge’s Decision Not to Open Uyghur Case for Crimes against Humanity and Genocide.” Uyghur Human Rights Project, 12 July 2024, uhrp.org/statement/landmark-decision-as-argentina-court-of-cassation-reverses-judges-decision-not-to-open-uyghur-case-for-crimes-against-humanity-and-genocide/.

The Federal Cases Against President Trump

By: Riley Meyer

Edited by: Melany Torres and Olivia Paik

Following the reelection of Donald Trump, special counsel Jack Smith is reevaluating the federal cases against the President-elect. Smith asked to delay these cases to assess the “unprecedented circumstances” of Trump’s election, the inauguration, and how to move forward per the Department of Justice’s policy. [1] In November  2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel on two cases. [2] One case involves Trump’s handling of classified documents, and the other case involves Trump’s federal election interference. These cases were progressing quickly before the Election Day, but now require a reassessment.

The Federal appeals court granted Smith's request to pause his appeal of President-elect Trump’s classified documents case until December 2. [3] Smith’s request came days after he asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C. for a pause in the criminal case charging Trump with crimes relating to his attempt to reverse the election results of the 2020 presidential election. [4] In his request, Smith wanted to hold the appeal in abeyance and push the next filing deadline to “afford the government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with the Department of Justice policy.” [5]

The Department of Justice has a policy that prohibits a sitting president from facing criminal prosecution while in office. [6] This policy has two purposes. Firstly, to allow the executive branch to carry out its constitutional duties without undermining its abilities. [7] Secondly, the executive branch has prosecutorial discretion, meaning that the president has authority over whether to indict themselves once inaugurated. [8] Trump, once president, could have his appointed attorney general toss out both cases. Thus, Smith must now wind down the proceedings of these cases so as not to conflict with policy.

Jack Smith and his team are planning to resign before Trump’s inauguration. Trump disclosed in a radio interview that he would fire Smith immediately when he is reelected, saying, “It’s so easy I would fire him within two seconds.” [9] The final question about the case will be whether Smith’s final report, which contains his charging decision, will be publicly available before Inauguration Day. [10] The Department of Justice requires the special counsel’s office to provide a confidential report to Attorney General Merrick Garland. [11] Garland decides if it will be publicized. If not publicized by Inauguration Day, the next attorney general could not release Smith’s final report.

The Department of Justice seems to intend to drop both cases before Inauguration Day, as suggested by these recent legal moves. However, Trump’s New York criminal conviction still stands, and prosecutors are urging the judge overseeing the sentence to consider options other than dismissal. One of the possibilities will be to hold off the guilty verdict until Trump leaves office in 2029. [12] Time will give a clearer indication of the next moves in the president-elect’s cases, but as of now, it appears that Trump will remain free of prosecution during his presidential term.

Notes:

1. Charalambous, Peter, and Katherine Faulders. “Court Pauses Appeal of Trump’s Classified Documents Case - ABC News.” ABC News, ABC News, 16 Nov. 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-pauses-appeal-trumps-classified-documents-case/story? id=115935246.

2. “Department of Justice | Special Counsel Jack Smith.” United States Department of Justice, 21 Nov. 2022, https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith.

3. Charalambous, Peter, and Katherine Faulders. “Court Pauses Appeal of Trump’s Classified Documents Case - ABC News.” ABC News, ABC News, 16 Nov. 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-pauses-appeal-trumps-classified-documents-case/story? id=115935246.

4. Mangan, Dan. “Trump Documents Case: Special Counsel Jack Smith Seeks Pause.” CNBC, CNBC, 13 Nov. 2024, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/13/trump-classified-documents-special-counsel-jack-smh-appeal-pause.html. 

5. Charalambous, Peter, and Katherine Faulders. “Court Pauses Appeal of Trump’s Classified Documents Case - ABC News.” ABC News, ABC News, 16 Nov. 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-pauses-appeal-trumps-classified-documents-case/story? id=115935246.

6. “Office of Legal Counsel | A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution | United States Department of Justice.” Department of Justice | Homepage | United States Department of Justice, 9 July 2014, https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictmnt-and-criminal-prosecution. 

7. Ibid. 

8. “Indictment of Presidents | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.” LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/indictment_of_presidents. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.

9. Jarrett, Laura, et al. “Special Counsel Jack Smith and Team to Resign before Trump Takes Office.” NBC News, NBC News, 13 Nov. 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/special-counsel-jack-smith-team-rsign-trump-takes-office-rcna179928. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Ibid.   

12. Epstein, Kayla. “Prosecutors Back Delaying Trump Sentence until He Leaves White House.” BBC Home - Breaking News, World News, US News, Sports, Business, Innovation, Climate, Culture, Travel, Video & Audio, BBC News, 19 Nov. 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo.

Bibliography:

Charalambous, Peter, and Katherine Faulders. “Court Pauses Appeal of Trump’s Classified Documents Case - ABC News.” ABC News, ABC News, 16 Nov. 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-pauses-appeal-trumps-classified-documents-case/story?id=115935246. 

“Department of Justice | Special Counsel Jack Smith.” United States Department of Justice, 21 Nov. 2022, https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith.

Epstein, Kayla. “Prosecutors Back Delaying Trump Sentence until He Leaves White House.” BBC Home - Breaking News, World News, US News, Sports, Business, Innovation, Climate, Culture, Travel, Video & Audio, BBC News, 19 Nov. 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo.

“Indictment of Presidents | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.” LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/indictment_of_presidents. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.

Jarrett, Laura, et al. “Special Counsel Jack Smith and Team to Resign before Trump Takes Office.” NBC News, NBC News, 13 Nov. 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/special-counsel-jack-smith-team-resign-trump-takes-office-rcna179928. 

Mangan, Dan. “Trump Documents Case: Special Counsel Jack Smith Seeks Pause.” CNBC, CNBC, 13 Nov. 2024, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/13/trump-classified-documents-special-counsel-jack-smith-appeal-pause.html. 

“Office of Legal Counsel | A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution | United States Department of Justice.” Department of Justice | Homepage | United States Department of Justice, 9 July 2014, https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution.