amy cruise facebook

Missing for 25 years: FBI searching for woman who disappeared on family vacation in 1998

by JESSICA A. BOTELHO | The National Desk

Authorities continue searching for a woman who went missing while she was on a cruise to the Caribbean with her family nearly three decades ago.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said Amy Lynn Bradley , of Petersburg, Virginia, was last seen on March 24, 1998. At that time, she was 23 years old and vacationing with her loved ones aboard the Royal Caribbean International Cruise Line’s ship Rhapsody of the Seas.

The FBI said the agency is offering a reward of up to $25,000 for information that leads to Bradley, as well as information that leads to the identification, arrest, and conviction of whoever is responsible for her disappearance.

According to a news release, the ship departed San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 21, 1998 and headed to Aruba. Two days later, it made its way to Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, with Bradley going missing the next day.

FBI Special Agent Erin Sheridan said Bradley went to a club with her brother, Brad, along with other passengers and crew, the night before she went missing.

"In the morning, when her parents and her brother woke, Amy was gone," Sheridan said in a video included in the release.

Brad was the last person to see her alive, according to authorities. He said the last word he said to Amy were I love you.

Knowing that that's the last thing I said to her has always been very comforting to me," he said in the footage.

In 2017, the FBI shared age-progressed photos of what Bradley might look like. The agency described Bradley as a white woman who has short brown hair, green eyes, weighs 120 pounds, and is 5 feet 6 inches tall.

The FBI also said Bradley has several tattoos, including a Tasmanian Devil spinning a basketball on her shoulder; the sun on her lower back; a Chinese symbol on her right ankle; and a Gecko lizard on her navel. She also has a navel ring.

The agency said anyone who has information about Bradley's disappearance was urged to contact their local FBI office or the nearest American Embassy or Consulate.

• 541-663-6388
• [email protected]

Find YOUR Why with Amy

Discover, play, relax, connect, around the world, special offers.

Railbookers - Worldwide Rail Sale

· Save $150 per couple on any 3–6-night rail vacations · Save $400 per couple on any 7–9-night... Save up to $600 on rail vacations

CIE - 2025 Early Bird Discount

2025 Early Bird Discount Save up to $1,000 per couple on all 2025 guided vacations. Get ahead of... Save up to $1,000 per couple on 2025 travel

Insight Vacations - Seasonal Travel Sale

Save up to $,3600 per couple. New seasons bring fresh opportunities for magical travel... Save up to $3,600 per couple

Paul Gauguin - Save 30% on Tahiti Cruises

Travel aboard the longest-serving luxury cruise line in the South Seas and enjoy savings of up to... Save up to 30%

Cruise Vacations

Our collection of cruise partners encompasses the best examples of the wide diversity of options available in cruising. From the family friendly, floating resorts of Royal Caribbean and Norwegian to the intimate, adult focused luxury of Regent and Seabourn, the market has something for everyone. In addition, we partner with a curated selection of both domestic and international river cruise companies such as Viking and AMAwaterways. And if your tastes lead you farther afield, we have the premier options in the expedition cruise market like Ponant and Lindblad Expeditions. So no matter where you wish to sail or what kind of ship you're lookng for, we have the relationships to make your travel dreams come true.

Group and Escorted Travel

Experiencing the world with friends, both old and new, can be one of the best features of travel. Whether it is family traveling together, a bunch of friends reuniting in a fun destination or a group with a common interest following their passion, group travel is an ideal way for people to connect. And we can handle all the logistics to make your group, large or small, into the trip of a lifetime. Or if you don’t have a group to travel with, our escorted tour partners like Tauck, Trafalgar and Globus can offer you a safe and seamlessly organized vacation with a group of likeminded individuals who will soon be your new traveling buddies.

Custom Touring

We can customize a vacation to your exact needs, regardless of your destination. And we can save you all the time and hassle of searching through on-line travel sites who are simply gigantic collections of poorly qualified products with almost no customer service to back them up if something happens. We partner with industry award-winning specialty operators, many with operations in the destinations themselves, who offer curated collections of the best products each destination has to offer. Whether it is a tour of European capitals, a jungle safari, or a relaxing stay in a beautiful beach resort, we can help you plan the trip down to the last detail and will be there for you throughout the entire trip to make sure it is the vacation you have dreamed of.

• Weekly Specials
• Featured Supplier
• River Cruises
• Travel Resources

Create a free profile to get unlimited access to exclusive videos, breaking news, sweepstakes, and more!

Amy Lynn Bradley: What Really Happened To The 23-Year-Old Who Vanished On A Family Cruise Ship?

Before her disappearance, her parents claimed the cruise crew was giving her “special attention.”

Amy Lynn Bradley was on vacation with her parents and brother on the Royal Caribbean International cruise line ship Rhapsody of the Seas when she disappeared on March 24, 1998.

The ship was making its way through the Caribbean Sea when the 23-year-old vanished. Before she went missing, Amy was out socializing at the cruise’s disco with her brother, other passengers and a live band, Blue Orchid. One of the band’s member’s, Alister Douglas, known as Yellow, said he and Amy partied together, but that they said goodnight around 1 a.m.

Between 5:15 and 5:30 am, Amy’s father, Ron said he saw his daughter asleep on the cabin balcony. When he got up at 6 a.m, she was no longer there. She reportedly left behind her shoes, but took a lighter and her cigarettes. Her father said it was very unlike her to leave without telling anyone where she was going.

Her brother Brad was the last family member to speak to her, when he said bye to her before going to sleep the night before.  “Myself and my parents have had to endure a lot of sadness, but the last thing that I ever said to Amy was, “I love you,” before I went to sleep that night. Knowing that that’s the last thing I said to her has always been very comforting to me,” Brad said.

The crew reportedly refused the family’s pleas to keep the ship away from the dock to prevent any potential kidnapper from carrying Amy to land. The cruise did not page for the missing woman until the cruise had docked in Curaçao and after many passengers already exited the ship. Investigators said there was no evidence that Amy, a trained lifeguard, fell overboard.

Before her disappearance, her parents claimed the cruise crew was giving her “special attention.” That led them to believe she was possibly kidnapped and sold into sex slavery.

Two Canadian tourists reported seeing a woman that looked like Amy on a beach in Curaçao in 1998. The woman they spotted had tattoos that reportedly matched Amy’s: a Tasmanian Devil spinning a basketball on her shoulder, a sun on her lower back, a Chinese symbol located on her right ankle and a gecko lizard on her navel.

A member of the Navy claimed he spotted Amy in a brothel in 1999. He said she told him that "her name was Amy Bradley and [she] begged him for help." That woman said she was not allowed to leave the brothel.

A photograph that appears to be Amy Lynn in her underwear was sent to the Bradley family via email in 2005. The image was spotted and sent to the family by a member of an organization that tracks down potential sex trafficking victims on adult websites.

The FBI has offered a reward of $25,000 for information leading to the resolution of this case.

[Images: FBI and YouTube]

Recommended for You

Cold Justice Assists in Conviction for Nori Jones' Murder

Michigan Grandma Repeatedly Shot Grandson, Killing Him

15-Year-Old, Boyfriend Plot Her Father's Murder

I stayed in a balcony cabin on Royal Caribbean's 2 newest and largest cruise ships. One was clearly better — and $900 cheaper.

• Icon of the Seas and Wonder of the Seas are Royal Caribbean's newest and largest cruise ships.
• I stayed in both of their balcony staterooms — a $130-per-person-per-day difference.
• Icon's pricier cabin looked more modern but lacked the functionality and comfort of Wonder's.

Do you know what $900 could buy you? More than three years of Netflix's premium plan, a new Gucci purse, or 2,059 spicy chicken McNuggets.

Or, in the case of Royal Caribbean's two largest and newest cruise ships , the cash could mean the difference between a cheap but functional balcony cabin and, ironically, a more expensive but less comfortable one.

Staterooms with balconies are the most popular cruise cabin category. After all, if you're going on a vacation at sea, wouldn't you want to be able to feel its breeze from your room?

But not all cabins with private outdoor spaces are created equal, even on two new mega-ships owned by the same cruise line.

I sailed on Royal Caribbean's Wonder of the Seas in 2022 and its larger successor, Icon of the Seas, in January.

Royal Caribbean assigned me an ocean-view balcony cabin for both complimentary sailings, the longest of which was three nights on Icon.

Both ships are operating seven-night cruises around the Caribbean in 2024.

About 66% of Wonder's cabins fall under the 'balcony' category. On Icon, they make up half of the staterooms.

Wonder of the Seas' balcony cabins start shy of $1,110 per person in 2024.

Even with nearly identical itineraries, the ones on Icon are, at their cheapest, a little more than $2,000 per person this year — or double that for the a New Year's cruise.

Wonder and Icon are the most boisterous, flamboyant, and overwhelming vessels I've ever boarded.

The pool decks were intensely colorful, the crowds were inescapable, and the long lists of activities and dining options were paralyzing.

So imagine my surprise when I unlocked my doors to find surprisingly bland rooms.

The neutral tans, blues, and whites did not scream "we belong on the world's biggest and most colorful cruise ships."

The vessels have an almost two-year age difference, as evidenced by some of their decor (mainly Icon's recessed mood lights and the more chic, darker wood tones).

But besides the light fixtures, rugs, and — frankly negligible — wall art and pillows, both cabins were fairly underwhelming compared to everything outside their front doors .

Aesthetics aside, let’s talk functionality.

Both had furnished 50-square-foot balconies.

Regarding the interior space, my 204-square-foot cabin on Icon of the Seas was 22 square feet larger than mine on Wonder.

In retrospect, I would've thought Icon's was smaller. More on that in a bit.

Both king-sized beds faced a television and some wall storage.

And both were flanked by light fixtures with built-in USB outlets, as is expected on most modern cruise ships.

The cruise line says the ships' balcony cabins use two twin mattresses that have been "converted" to make a king bed. It's a common practice I've never had an issue with — until Icon.

On Wonder, the plush pillows enveloped me the moment I laid down. I slept great. No complaints.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the new ship.

I (my back pain) could feel the hard ridge where the two mattresses met, making for a pretty miserable and uncomfortable sleep.

So much for starfishing — I kept to one side of the bed to avoid rolling over the bony bump.

For the most part, the living “rooms” were the same.

Both had the same furniture I see on almost every mass-market ship: a couch that could convert into a bed and a desk that extended into a dresser.

But storage, a high priority for cruisers, was organized differently.

Two thin wardrobes with drawers, hangars, and shelves surrounded either side of my bed on Wonder .

Icon, on the other hand, had one large wardrobe next to the living room.

Unfortunately, it had noticeably less shelving. And the metal bins let out ear-piercing screeches at every move — a lazy and annoying detail that the designers could've easily fixed with cheap felt pads.

So far, the differences have been small. But not for long.

I had two gripes with my Wonder bathroom: the lack of hair conditioner and the ill-positioned faucet that flooded the counter whenever I washed my hands.

I had the same issues on Icon. But that was the least of my concerns.

My bathroom on the older ship was well-sized for 1 person, but maybe too small for 2.

On Icon — the world's largest cruise ship — my bathroom was too compact for even one body.

Michael Bayley, the president and CEO of Royal Caribbean International, told reporters in January that 80% of Icon's 2,805 cabins were designed for families, a sharp increase from previous vessels like Wonder.

I'm not sure a family of four could coexist in Icon's balcony cabin — solely because of the bathroom size. There's no way two people could fit in there simultaneously. A fight over who gets priority access to the toilet could ruin a peaceful family vacation! (Which is to say, I'm glad I was traveling alone.)

With the bathroom door closed, I accidentally elbowed the walls more times than I could count.

The spare towels had to be stored on a shelf inside the shower. Because the counter was so small, I had to keep most of my toiletries and products on the shelves or in the drawer.

Surprisingly, that's where Icon excelled. Its bathroom had more storage options than its older counterpart, which didn't even have a drawer.

However, the older ship's shower had a clothesline perfect for drying swimwear. It's a small but crucial amenity, especially on a vessel with so many pools and waterslides.

Unfortunately, both were stocked with two-in-one body wash and shampoo — and no hair conditioner

Let’s go through our checklist.

My balcony cabin on Wonder looked less modern than its successor (the TV on Icon had Chromecast, after all).

But it was significantly more functional and comfortable. The bed was incomparably more pleasant, the closets had more defined storage components, and the bathroom was considerably larger, even if it lacked additional shelving and drawers.

The question is: Which one is more worth its price?

Icon's cheapest balcony cabins are currently $900 more than the most affordable ones on Wonder — an almost $130 per person and day difference.

Based on the quality of the staterooms alone, if you prioritize functionality, comfort, and affordability over modern decor, consider saving money and going with the two-year-old ship .

But let’s not forget that cruise fares include unlimited food, on board activities, and nighttime entertainment.

Both ships have a fairly similar list of amenities. But only the newer one has a waterpark , an adult-only infinity pool club, and a swim-up bar, to name a few unique amenities.

So yes, Icon's balcony cabins are more costly. But the staggering price difference — and tiny bathroom — could be worth it if you think the its surplus of additional amenities is worth paying for.

• Main content

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

The Lawyer Defending Idaho’s Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side

Justice Amy Coney Barrett famously provided the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. So if you are arguing in favor of an abortion ban, you probably don’t want to alienate Barrett—by, say, condescendingly dismissing her concerns when she points out that your legal theory doesn’t make any sense. Yet that is what Joshua Turner did on Wednesday while defending Idaho’s draconian abortion restrictions, and much to Barrett’s evident irritation. Turner—who represented the Idaho solicitor general’s office in the second major abortion case to come before the high court after it promised us in its Dobbs opinion that the court was out of the abortion business in 2022—might just have lost his case by repeatedly mansplaining his self-contradictory position to Barrett and the other three women justices. In his toneless, dispassionate telling, his entirely incomprehensible position was just too complex for them to understand. And so he just kept repeating it, over and over. These justices, including Barrett, sounded increasingly fed up with his chin-stroking dissembling on an issue that’s literally life-or-death for pregnant women in red states. If the court’s male members noticed Turner’s dismissive attitude toward their colleagues, they didn’t care. The gender divide on the court has never been so revealing.

Perhaps because Dobbs was a threat to unknown future women, whereas real women are now being left to hemorrhage, lose the functioning of their reproductive organs, or be popped onto helicopters to receive out-of-state stabilizing care, none of the life-and-death harms being experienced in red states around the country feel very theoretical to anyone who has thought about pregnancy in a serious way. Yet, for male justices more worried about harms to the spending clause , nothing about potentially lethal pregnancies warranted even a moment’s pause.

Wednesday’s case, Moyle v. United States , revolves around a clash between Idaho law and a 1986 federal statute called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (or EMTALA). Idaho’s abortion ban has no exception for the health of the patient; rather, it criminalizes abortion unless it’s “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” EMTALA, meanwhile, requires virtually all hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for any condition that “could reasonably be expected” to put the patient’s health “in serious jeopardy,” as well as any condition that could seriously impair bodily functions or organs.

The Biden administration argues there’s a conflict between Idaho law and EMTALA: Where Idaho allows termination only when the patient is at the brink of death, EMTALA mandates intervention earlier, to stabilize the patient before she is literally dying, including situations in which she is facing organ damage, infertility, or other serious harms. So the administration sued the state, and a federal judge issued an injunction compelling Idaho to allow emergency abortions to preserve a patient’s “health.” Now SCOTUS must decide whether the federal statute limits the ability of states like Idaho to criminalize abortions that are health-sparing but not necessarily lifesaving. And that means slipping into their white coats and stethoscopes and explaining to America’s emergency physicians how to do their jobs without risking two to five years in prison and a loss of licensure for making poor guesses about what stabilizing care involves.

Turner, representing Idaho on Wednesday, made a hodgepodge of his state’s arguments that are frankly difficult to harmonize. He seemed to make three central claims: First, that EMTALA does not mandate any particular standard of care (despite prescribing one pretty clearly); second, that even if it did, Idaho’s law would comport with that standard (even though it criminalizes abortion as stabilizing treatment); and third, that abortion is never a standard of care under Idaho law. Except for when it is, which is when it’s necessary to save a patient’s life. Which is a narrower standard than what EMTALA mandates. Which is irrelevant, because, according to Turner, EMTALA doesn’t mandate anything at all. But also, that there is a difference between the care demanded by EMTALA and Idaho, but also that there is no difference, but also that physicians shouldn’t sweat this because beneficent prosecutors probably won’t jail them on the basis of a close call.  

Confused? So were the justices. Progressive Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor all took turns trying to draw out a single scrap of consistent logic from Turner’s rhetorical detritus. Kagan pressed him to admit that EMTALA sets forth an “objective standard” of care—the stabilization of a patient—that sometimes includes abortion. He refused. She sounded aghast. Does the statute, she asked, at least require states to permit abortions for ectopic pregnancies, which will cause death if not terminated? No, Turner responded, adding: “That understanding is a humble one with respect to the federalism rule of states.” To which Kagan in turn responded: “It may be too humble for women’s health.”

Jackson questioned Turner’s insistence that EMTALA does not require anything that Idaho prohibits, rebuking his strange declaration that the state’s trigger ban simply defers to the “medical judgment” of state legislatures rather than doctors. And Sotomayor pummeled Turner with real stories, all ripped from the headlines, of women denied abortions and then forced to bleed out in agony, then asked him whether these women would be allowed to terminate under Idaho law. When Turner refused to give a yes-or-no answer, Barrett finally stepped in. “I’m kind of shocked, actually,” she told Turner, “because I thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered. And you’re now saying they’re not?” Turner responded that he wasn’t, to which Barrett retorted: “Well, you’re hedging. I mean, Justice Sotomayor is asking you, ‘Would this be covered or not,’ and it was my understanding that the legislature’s witnesses said that these would be covered.” Turner told her, in short, not quite —the witnesses said that, in “exercising their medical judgment, they could in good faith determine that lifesaving care was necessary.” Barrett sounded irritated. “But some doctors might reach a contrary conclusion, I think is what Justice Sotomayor is asking you,” she told him. “If they reached the conclusion that the legislature’s doctors did, would they be prosecuted under Idaho law?”

Turner said no, but Barrett wasn’t convinced. “What if the prosecutor thought differently?” she went on. “What if the prosecutor thought, well, I don’t think any good-faith doctor could draw that conclusion, I’m going to put on my expert?” Remarkably, Turner told her that’s “the nature of prosecutorial discretion”—meaning prosecutors might well bring charges anyway. At that point, doctors would have to defend their decision in court while facing a two-to-five- year prison sentence. (And ER doctors also face lawsuits if they defer lifesaving care.) So in Idaho you can pretty much just decide how to end your career, while spinning the wheel until someone sues you. No wonder physicians are bolting from the state.

Barrett was, to put it mildly, not satisfied. Later, when Turner tried to blame the Department of Justice for launching this case, she again put him in his place. “Well, hold on a second,” she said. “You’re here because there’s an injunction precluding you from enforcing your law. And if your law can fully operate because EMTALA doesn’t curb Idaho’s authority to enforce its law …” But she couldn’t finish her thought, because Turner interrupted her. It was one of many interruptions she would face from the Idaho attorney. And as the morning went on, she was less and less indulgent of his let-me-explain-this-like-you’re-a-toddler style of argument. When Turner accused the solicitor general of taking an overly aggressive litigation posture, Barrett declined to engage, instead sharply informing him: “OK, well, I would like to hear the solicitor general’s response to that,” and moving on. When she called out one of his silliest claims—that the Justice Department demanded emergency abortions to treat a “mental health condition”—Barrett sounded fed up. Turner hemmed and hawed, butchering the statute so badly that she had to step in to remind him of what it actually said.

When Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had her turn at the lectern, she faced a barrage of questions from Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch about whether Congress had run afoul of the spending clause when it passed EMTALA, an issue that was not briefed and should not be in the case. Samuel Alito, who brought all of his dictionary-wielding and woman-erasing skills from his star turn in Dobbs to bear, devoted his time to defending the “unborn child” who—in his view—was the real goal of EMTALA’s drafters, laying the groundwork for fetal personhood arguments that were too radioactive even for Turner to take on. Alito hectored Prelogar about her grasp of preemption, her reading of text, and her understanding of the term “unborn child,” casting her as some drunk lunatic who had staggered into court without any comprehension of the law.

Throughout the day doctors were referenced as “he” whereas every nurse was a “she.” Women were, as Alito conceded, “individuals,” but man, oh man, are they ever whiny and demanding. Alito also breathlessly cited Ronald Reagan as the deity who signed EMTALA and would never have wanted it to undermine the precious rights of “unborn children.” And a little “temporary” organ damage, he mused, might not be so bad if suffered for the benefit of a fetus. The task fell to Kagan to remind everyone that in the few months that Idaho has enforced its near-total ban, six women have already been airlifted to other states to receive emergency abortions that are criminal under Idaho law. Real women, flown out in great pain and at great expense, to get treatment that is objectively recognized as the standard of care.

It’s not clear where this case will land: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked a handful of breezy questions but didn’t tip their hands. It’s odd, though, that Wednesday’s arguments didn’t fully break through the news cycle (as tomorrow’s in the Donald Trump immunity case surely will). As Turner conceded, none of this madness will stop at Idaho; at least five other states, including Texas, have nearly identical bans. But for anyone who listened to these arguments, the symmetry was striking: Turner could spew whatever nonsense he wanted, ignoring serious questions from female interlocutors or evading them because they were invisible to him—just as the pregnant women who will get sicker and lose blood and be turned away at hospitals are invisible to the state he represents.

Ask Amy: Cruise buddy said she has allergies, but now we all have COVID. Should she apologize?

• Published: Sep. 29, 2023, 11:50 a.m.

Did vacationing friend have COVID? She wouldn't take a test, so they'll never know for sure. Getty Images. Getty Images

• Amy Dickinson

Dear Amy: On a recent small-cruise vacation with three other friends, one of the group commenced the trip with what she described as allergic congestion.

Within several days, another member of our group exhibited the same symptoms and was subsequently diagnosed with a rather uncomfortable case of Covid. He isolated until we disembarked.

The rest of our group eventually tested positive at the end of the cruise (with mostly mild cases), but the original perpetrator refused to test and went on to meet another tour group without masking.

The end of our vacation was somewhat ruined because we were unable to visit elderly friends that we had planned to see.

My husband has decided to write off the friendship due to what he considers her selfish behavior, and I think she needs to at least acknowledge her inconsideration of others and apologize.

How to handle this?

– Perplexed in Pennsylvania

Dear Perplexed: These latest strains of the Covid virus are spreading and so – as we enter another winter season, the responsible thing to do is to have tests on hand and to test yourself at the first sign of any symptoms, to notify others if you test positive, and to mask up when you’re sick or if you’ve been exposed to a known case of Covid.

However, you describe your friend as “the original perpetrator.” But maybe she was having an allergy attack.

Another person in your group (or another traveler) might have boarded this cruise with an unknown case of Covid, and spread it to others.

And yes, having been exposed to several known cases of Covid, this friend of yours absolutely should have tested and masked before hopping onto another cruise.

If you honestly believe that your friend will acknowledge her lack of consideration and apologize for your group getting Covid, then go ahead and ask her to do so.

However, given her behavior so far, I’d say your chances of receiving these considerations are very slim.

Dear Amy: You should have told “Teen With No Experience” that she is a gem. When the right man comes along, what a gift to him her virginity will be!

– Mary in Wisconsin

Dear Mary: A person’s virginity is NOT a gift to be offered to another person. The “gift” is to own your sexual choices, with joy.

You can email Amy Dickinson at [email protected] or send a letter to Ask Amy, P.O. Box 194, Freeville, NY 13068.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

• International

Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump immunity case

By CNN's John Fritze, Tierney Sneed, Hannah Rabinowitz and Holmes Lybrand

We've wrapped up our live coverage for the day. You can relive today's Supreme Court proceedings as they happened by scrolling through the posts below.

These are the key takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s absolute immunity claims

From CNN's John Fritze, Tierney Sneed and Marshall Cohen

The Supreme Court appeared ready to reject former President Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity and the broad protections he has sought to shut down his federal election subversion case , but also reluctant to give special counsel Jack Smith carte blanche to pursue those charges.

After nearly three hours of oral arguments, several of the justices seemed willing to embrace a result that could jeopardize the ability to hold a trial before the November election.

Much of the hearing focused on whether there should be a distinction between official acts by Trump pursuant to his presidential duties and his private conduct.

Here are key takeaways from today's oral arguments:

• Supreme Court seems unlikely to fully resolve the immunity question: As the justices wrestled with the nuances of the case and a series of complicated hypotheticals, it seemed increasingly unlikely the court would offer a clear answer on whether Trump may be prosecuted for his effort to overturn the 2020 election. The upshot is that the Supreme Court appeared likely to leave much of that work to lower courts, proceedings that could take months and further delay a trial that had originally been set for March 4. That outcome would play into Trump’s strategy of delay and jeopardize a trial before the election.
• Trump attorney concedes some acts may be "private" and not official: In a notable series of concessions, Trump’s attorney D. John Sauer acknowledged that some of the alleged conduct supporting the criminal charges against the former president were private. The admission shows how much ground Sauer gave up during the hearing, after Trump had made more sweeping claims in his legal briefs earlier this year, asserting that the entire prosecution should be thrown out because the actions in question were part of his official duties as president.

Continue reading more takeaways from the arguments.

Justices could give Trump a strategic win if they punt the case back to lower courts, legal correspondent says

From CNN's Maureen Chowdhury

While it appears the majority of Supreme Court justices are not willing to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith's case outright, they may punt it back to lower courts, which would delay a trial and hand a strategic win to former President Donald Trump, CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid said.

"It's pretty clear from what we heard that the majority of justices are not willing to just toss out the special counsel's case," Reid said.

But, she continued, Chief Justice John Roberts "clearly believes that the lower courts did not do enough to suss out exactly what is an official act versus a private act. So what they're setting up here is likely the justices are going to come up with some sort of test, and then send it back down to the lower courts for more litigation."

There is a possibility the case could be brought back to the justices a year from now, "after more litigation at the lower-court level, or if Trump is reelected, he can make this case go away. So, even if he's not likely poised for a legal win at the high court, strategically, it sounded like this is going to be a win for him," Reid said.

Remember: The issue of determining whether Trump's actions were "private" or "official" is central to the former president's claim that his efforts to overturn the 2020 election were part of his official duties as president — and therefore subject to immunity from prosecution.

Arguments in Trump’s historic Supreme Court immunity dispute are over

From CNN's John Fritze

With Chief Justice John Roberts announcing that the “case is submitted,” the court has finished hearing arguments in Trump’s immunity case. 

And that raises an important question that is largely unanswerable: Just how much time will the high court take to hand down its opinion? Usually, a major case argued in April wouldn’t be decided until the end of June.

But in the Trump immunity appeal, the court is already facing criticism for the weeks it took to decide whether to take the case. There is concern, particularly on the left, that the slow pace benefited Trump’s broader legal strategy to delay a trial until after his election. 

On the other hand, the justices operate on their own schedule, and the court was designed to resist external pressures on their work.

Barrett sketches out how case could go to trial this year

From CNN's Katelyn Polantz

In a lengthy and crucial exchange between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the Justice Department's Michael Dreeben, the Supreme Court heard how Trump's case could see a path to trial this year.

Barrett sketched out that the case could go to trial, and how, if the Supreme Court sends it back to the trial level, it could be heard by a jury without further appeals court involvement.

That would mean no further delays in Donald Trump's case before a trial, once the Supreme Court rules.

She asked Dreeben if the trial-level could sort out what's official or private acts of the presidency in this key, or is there "another option for the special counsel just to proceed on the private conduct?"

Dreeben told her the indictment is substantially about private conduct. He says the special counsel's office would like to present a full picture of the allegations to the jury.

But in Trump's legal world, leaving determinations about his allegations in the case could be disastrous before the election, according to polls as well as the jury pool makeup in Washington, DC.

Justice Jackson: In "ordinary" case, trial would proceed even if defendant has some immunity protection

From CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says in an “ordinary” case, a trial would move forward even if a criminal defendant had immunity for certain actions.

“There is sufficient allegations in the indictment, in the government’s view, that fall into the 'private acts' bucket that the case should be allowed to proceed,” Jackson said.

“Because in an ordinary case, it wouldn’t be stopped just because some of the acts are allegedly immunized. Even if people agree that some are immunized. If there are other acts that aren’t, the case would go forward.”

“That is right,” Michael Dreeben, the special counsel’s attorney, said.

Dreeben has repeatedly said many of Trump’s actions around the 2020 election were part of his presidential duties, and therefore aren’t protected by immunity – even if the high court said the former president had some level of protection.

Special counsel attorney tells Barrett that SCOTUS ruling could impact state Trump prosecutions

From CNN's Holmes Lybrand

The attorney for special counsel Jack Smith suggested that if the Supreme Court found that presidential immunity was implicit, it could also protect the president from state prosecution.

“If the president has some kind of immunity that’s implicit in Article Two (of the Constitution) then that immunity would protect him from state prosecution as well?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked.

“Of course,” attorney Michael Dreeben said.

Trump has been charged in a widespread conspiracy case in Fulton County, Georgia, for his actions to subvert the 2020 election results.

Meanwhile, judge upholds jury verdict against Trump in E. Jean Carroll defamation case

From CNN's Kara Scannell in New York

In New York on Thursday, a federal judge upheld the E. Jean Carroll defamation verdict and $83 million damages award, denying Donald Trump’s motion for a new trial.

Judge Lewis Kaplan, in a written opinion Thursday, said Trump’s legal arguments are without merit. The judge also found that the punitive damages the jury awarded Trump “passes constitutional muster.”

Trump is also separately appealing the verdict.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh highlight the historical importance of immunity case

When discussing the issue of determining motivation in the case, Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted the historical importance of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter of presidential immunity.

The justice added: “We’re writing a rule for the ages.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed that sentiment, noting that the case has future implications for the presidency and the country as a whole. 

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

• Viewing Travel Agent : Amy Chen

Travel Agent Details

About Amy Chen

Cruise Planners has a tremendous reputation for quality, service, and very competitive pricing for ALL of your travel needs. Cruise Planners travel advisors will help you discover exciting adventures around the world. From cruises to land tours and completely packaged vacations, we specialize in all types of travel and will create an unforgettable vacation just for you.

Hours of Operation

Testimonials.

Modal title

Get exclusive deals and services, cruise planners travel messages.

Receive texts for:

*Messages and data rates may apply. Text STOP to opt-out or HELP for help. Message frequency varies. By opting in, you consent to receiving SMS messages. Privacy Policy