Sign up here to receive the Story of the Week in your inbox every Thursday.
The Supreme Court met at the end of last week on several matters, and made two key decisions. It voted to allow the Manhattan, N.Y. district attorney to pursue former President Donald Trump's tax returns, and it dismissed an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans who were trying to disqualify 2020 presidential election ballots that were received after Election Day.
Both decisions received coverage from all sides. Left-rated outlets often concentrated more on the tax return decision than right-rated outlets; some left-rated voices framed the court's decisions as a pointed rebuke of Trump. Many on the right focused on Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent in the Pennsylvania decision, highlighting the argument that potential election issues and questions need to be resolved regardless of how accurate election fraud claims are.
Perspectives: Major media outlets that concentrated on the aftermath of George Floyd's death didn't cover Minneapolis' recent decision to give its police department money for new recruits; and Democrats and Republicans show surprising commonalities on certain areas of immigration policy.
More from AllSides: Need a refresher on how AllSides rates media bias? Check out our Methodology page!; Download the AllSides mobile app for balanced news on the go. Available for iOS and Android; and you can support our work and mission by becoming a sustaining member of AllSides. Sustaining memberships allow you to read AllSides ad-free.
Snippets from the Center
"The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a last-ditch bid by former President Donald Trump to keep his financial records, including years of his tax returns, out of the hands of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr. The decision, the second time the nation’s highest court has refused to block a grand jury subpoena for those confidential records, was announced in an order with no noted dissents. The news further imperils the ex-president, who is facing investigations in New York and elsewhere."
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday brought a formal end to eight lingering disputes pursued by former President Donald Trump and his allies related to the Nov. 3 presidential election including a Republican challenge to the extension of Pennsylvania’s deadline to receive mail-in ballots. The justices turned away appeals by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and Republican members of the state legislature of a ruling by Pennsylvania’s top court ordering officials to count mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received up to three days later."
Snippets from the Right
"In an unsigned one-sentence order issued earlier today, the Supreme Court is allowing New York state prosecutors to obtain former President Donald Trump's tax returns and some other financial documents...This ruling doesn't necessarily mean that Trump will be charged with any financial crimes as a result, much less convicted. But it will make it easier for New York prosecutors to find any evidence of such criminality, if it is out there. And, given Trump's history, few informed observers would be surprised if it turned out he engaged in some illegal activity here."
National Review (opinion)
"I’m amazed to see that Thomas’s dissent somehow generated this wildly distorted article from CNN’s veteran Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic...A trusting reader might imagine that Thomas’s dissent is replete with references to Dominion and Smartmatic and to various of Trump’s other allegations of fraud. In fact, Thomas makes no mention of such allegations."
Snippets from the Left
"Donald Trump took a drubbing at the Supreme Court on Monday, as the justices in a flurry of orders dealt critical blows to his efforts to shield his tax records from a New York prosecutor and his oft-repeated false claims that there was widespread voter fraud during the last election. It's as if the justices, in one day, sought to wipe their hands of lingering issues that had been heralded by the former President in a cascade of tweets, legal filings and statements during the last months of his administration."
Los Angeles Times (opinion)
"As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday court decided not to hear a claim by Pennsylvania Republicans that the U.S. Constitution was violated by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision allowing some late-arriving mail ballots to be counted. But three justices suggested that they might be open to arguments that state legislatures are supreme in election matters, even to the point of ignoring decisions by state supreme courts. The notion that legislatures have the final say in elections figured in then-President Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of last year’s election. If adopted by the court, it could undermine the right to vote in several ways."