The Biden administration formally blamed Iran on Monday for a flurry of hacking efforts launched this summer against the presidential campaigns of both major political parties.
In a statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the FBI said they are confident Iranian cyber operatives have “sought access to individuals with direct access to the presidential campaigns of both political parties.”
The agencies specifically called out hacks targeted at the Republican nominee, blaming Iran for “recently reported activities to compromise former President Trump’s campaign.” POLITICO first reported earlier this month that the Trump campaign said it had been hacked.
The statement from the three agencies largely confirmed reports from groups that track hacking operations. In the last two weeks, both Microsoft and Google have published reports asserting Iranian hackers sent spear-phishing emails — which seek to trick victims into clicking a malicious link — against individuals affiliated with at least one of the two campaigns.
The statement said that Iranian hacking activities, “including thefts and disclosures, are intended to influence the U.S. election process.”
Spokespeople for the ODNI, FBI and CISA declined to comment on whether this meant that the latest disclosures sent to media outlets regarding the Trump campaign were part of a targeted Iranian influence operation.
The FBI confirmed last week it had opened an investigation into the activity against the campaigns of Trump and the former Biden-Harris ticket back in June.
The leak of the campaign documents earlier this month ignited concern that Tehran could disrupt the 2024 presidential race much like Russia was accused of doing eight years ago.
The intelligence community has previously said the Iranians are seeking to undermine the candidacy of Donald Trump. And, the statement Monday confirmed Tehran was more aggressive than it has been in past years.
The intelligence community has “observed increasingly aggressive Iranian activity during this election cycle,” it read.
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/HhgF8E8VkBYXhl0JAcuYP3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/cameras-banner-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&title=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/limiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial/" data-a2a-title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial">Share</a></p><p><em> </em><em>The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available </em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/#relists_explained"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Over the past couple of conferences, the Supreme Court has continued to clear out the rolls of relisted cases. Remarkably, the Supreme Court denied review without comment in the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/justices-consider-next-steps-in-murder-case-in-which-prosecution-admits-error/">most recent newly relisted case</a>, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/escobar-v-texas-2/"><em>Escobar v. Texas</em></a>, in which Texas conceded that erroneous DNA evidence had contributed to the defendant’s conviction for capital murder.</p>
<p>The court denied review on March 24 in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/franklin-v-new-york/"><em>Franklin v. New York</em></a>, involving the right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them. But Justices <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-330_h315.pdf">Samuel Alito</a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-330_h315.pdf#page=5">Neil Gorsuch</a>, in separate opinions respecting the denial of certiorari, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/alito-and-gorsuch-call-for-court-to-reconsider-confrontation-clause-precedent/">suggested that the court would need to revisit</a> the landmark 2004 decision in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7792517891204110362&q=crawford+v.+washington&hl=en&as_sdt=3,47"><em>Crawford v.Washington</em></a> that narrowed the use of hearsay testimony in criminal trials.<span id="more-319465"></span></p>
<p>The court also denied review this week in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shockley-v-vandergriff/"><em>Shockley v. Vandergriff</em></a>, which asked the justices to decide whether the fact that an actual judge considered a prisoner’s claim to be meritorious was enough to demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate” the claim — the showing necessary for a prisoner to obtain the “certificate of appealability” necessary under federal law to appeal the denial of the prisoner’s habeas corpus petition. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-517_4fc4.pdf">dissented from the denial of certiorari</a>.</p>
<p>That brings us to the upcoming conference. There are 96 petitions and motions on the docket for this Friday’s conference. Only one of them is on its first relist: <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/villarreal-v-texas/"><em>Villarreal v. Texas</em></a>.</p>
<p>David Asa Villarreal was the only defense witness at his trial in Texas state court for murdering his boyfriend and methamphetamine supplier Aaron Estrada. His direct examination was interrupted at noon by a lengthy overnight recess. The trial judge, in an instruction whose limits could charitably be described as “not a model of clarity,” told defense counsel to act as though Villarreal were still “on the stand,” and thus not to confer with him about his testimony overnight. In a series of offhand comments, the judge suggested counsel might still confer about sentencing and trial logistics, just not about Villarreal’s testimony. Villareal’s attorney objected that such an instruction interfered with his client’s right to confer with his counsel. The next day, Villarreal finished testifying, was convicted, and drew a 60-year sentence.</p>
<p>Villarreal’s case implicates two aging Supreme Court criminal procedure precedents. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/80/"><em>Geders v. United States</em></a>, held that a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment by prohibiting the defendant from speaking with his counsel during an overnight recess between the defendant’s direct and cross-examination. But <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/272/"><em>Perry v. Leeke</em></a>, 13 years later, held that a trial court does not violate the Sixth Amendment by prohibiting the defendant from consulting his counsel during a fifteen-minute recess between his direct testimony and cross-examination.</p>
<p>By a 2-1 vote, the court of appeals affirmed Villarreal’s conviction, though noting confusion among the lower courts on the subject. And Texas’s highest court for criminal appeals, the aptly named Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, likewise affirmed by a divided vote. It concluded that by placing off limits only discussion of the defendant’s ongoing testimony, the trial court had complied with the Sixth Amendment.</p>
<p>Villarreal now seeks review, asking the court for further guidance about the universe of circumstances not covered by <em>Geders</em> and <em>Perry</em>. Texas opposes review on the ground that, “[w]hile there is a split of authority concerning such orders,” orders restricting a defendant’s conferring with counsel during substantial recesses “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/348537/20250225093718236_250219a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf#page=17">are rarely issued</a>.” The state argues that the decision in Villarreal’s case comports with the Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment precedents.</p>
<p>On the one hand, it has been a long, long time since the Supreme Court last weighed in on this issue: Most readers would consider me <a href="https://store.thanatos.net/cdn/shop/products/2021KY-650_1024x1024@2x.jpg?v=1658666493">an old man</a>, I have been practicing for over 30 years, and I didn’t even begin law school until <a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61ylKuCU26L._SY355_.jpg">the year after <em>Perry</em> was decided</a>. But the current courts shows little appetite for weighing in on constitutional issues of trial practice. This case seems unlikely to result in more than an opinion dissenting from denial of review. I would be happy to eat crow on this.</p>
<h3><strong>New Relists</strong></h3>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/villarreal-v-texas/"><em>Villarreal v. Texas</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-557.html">24-557</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether a trial court abridges a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.</p>
<h3><strong>Returning Relists</strong></h3>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apache-stronghold-v-united-states/"><em>Apache Stronghold v. United States</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-291.html">24-291</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-42-the-public-health-and-welfare/chapter-21b-religious-freedom-restoration/section-2000bb-1-free-exercise-of-religion-protected">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</a>, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.<br />
(Relisted after the Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/"><em>Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-131.html">24-131</a><br />
<strong>Issues: </strong>(1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.<br />
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/"><em>Snope v. Brown</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html">24-203</a><br />
<strong>Issue:</strong> Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.<br />
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/l-m-v-town-of-middleborough-massachusetts/"><em>L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-410.html">24-410</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.<br />
(Relisted after the Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/neilly-v-michigan/"><em>Neilly v. Michigan</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-395.html">24-395</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether restitution ordered as part of a criminal sentence is punishment for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.<br />
(Relisted after the Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ellingburg-v-united-states/"><em>Ellingburg v. United States</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-482.html">24-482</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether criminal restitution under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-ii-criminal-procedure/chapter-232-miscellaneous-sentencing-provisions/section-3663a-mandatory-restitution-to-victims-of-certain-crimes">Mandatory Victim Restitution Act</a> is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.<br />
(Relisted after the Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/limiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial/">Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
<p>Rivers NYCN has commended Wike and Fubara for giving peace a chance, urging continued dialogue and humility to heal Rivers State.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.arise.tv/rivers-youth-group-commends-wike-and-fubara-for-embracing-peace-plans-reconciliation-summit/">Rivers Youth Group Commends Wike and Fubara for Embracing Peace, Plans Reconciliation Summit</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.arise.tv">Arise News</a>.</p>
