Is the President at the top of all organ waiting lists? In the United States, people can often wait for years on organ lists before receiving the organ they need. Does the President automatically move to the top of these lists, should they find themselves in need of an organ, or do they have to wait like everyone else? Edit: Is there a legal mechanism in place for getting the President an organ, should they suddenly need one?
There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by &quot;qualified organ procurement organizations&quot; and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121. 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation policies &quot;[s]hall be based on sound medical judgment&quot;. The actual policies that have been created can be found at https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/governance/policies/. The OPTN policy document is very long, and the criteria are different for different organs, but everything I could find seemed to be of a medical nature. Moreover 5.4.A says: Allocation of deceased donor organs must not be influenced positively or negatively by political influence, national origin, ethnicity, sex, religion, or financial status. The part about &quot;political influence&quot; would seem to rule out giving special consideration to the President.
Part of the problem you'll find is that there are so few impeachments in U.S. History (Only 21 articles of Impeachment have ever been drafted, of which only 8 resulted in convictions) and SCOTUS is so selective on cases it chooses to hear, that only one case has ever been heard and that was upheld (Nixon v. United States). In that case, SCOTUS ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the legal question before it (was the new trial format a proper trial by the senate), but did not have an opinion one way or another to suggest that SCOTUS could not review other cases that come before it. One of the reasons they also haven't is in order to have a legal case in the U.S., the plaintiff must suffer actual harm. More impeachments ended without a conviction than with either acquittal (8), resignation before trial conclusion (4), and expulsion from senate (1, and will never occur again as Congressional office holders are not impeachable following this particular case). Since no harm was caused and courts do not rule on hypotheticals, a case with actual harm (conviction) must occur in order for SCOTUS to even consider hearing the case. Nixon does not bar SCOTUS from hearing more appeals resulting from Impeachment, it only bars those relating to the manner in which the senate chooses to hold the trial.
An individual obtains due process rights upon entering into the United States. For a recent write-up on this question, see this piece at Reason. The people Trump is talking about generally aren't being denied admission at an established, legal border crossing; they're coming across wherever they can get through, and only being discovered by federal agents thereafter. Because they're already in the United States, they have due process rights. As for cross-border interactions with ICE or CBP, the extent of due process protections is still an open question. SCOTUS took it up last year, but it kicked the case back to a lower court rather than deciding it.
No, if, as you say we put aside the human rights questions surrounding the death penalty itself and assuming that the prisoners had been legitimately charged, convicted and had exhausted their appeals process. Once a person has been convicted, sentenced to death and has exhausted their appeals then the timing of the execution passes from the judicial branch to the executive branch of government. This is why governments can implement and remove moratoriums on executions at their discretion. Doubtless there are administrative rules and logistical issues involved in the actual timing of the execution but if these have all been correctly dealt with then they are essentially held at the pleasure of the person in the government charged with the decision. Was it legal? Probably. Was it ethical? ...
See https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/, the section on "Foreign Nationals". The Commission stated, in AO 1998-14, that the use of any surname on a contribution check (or similar instrument) would not, by itself, give any reason to inquire as to the person’s nationality. Nonetheless, the Commission advised the committee to take the following minimally intrusive steps to ensure that the contributions it received did not come from foreign nationals: Ensure that public political ads and solicitations directed to audiences outside the U.S. contain a summary of the foreign national prohibition of 52 U.S.C. § 30121. Make further inquiry into the nationality of the contributor if the committee receives a contribution postmarked from any non U.S. territory. Make further inquiry into the nationality of the contributor if the committee receives a contribution indicating that either the bank or the account owner has a foreign address. In all of the these instances, if the contribution is submitted along with credible evidence (for example, a copy of a valid U.S. passport) that the contributor is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or a permanent resident alien, no further inquiry need be made. However, if the committee has actual knowledge that the contributor is in fact a foreign national, it may not rely on these documents as a defense. So, if the donor has been informed of the rules and gives a US address, the campaign can assume that they are eligible to donate, unless the campaign has actual knowledge that they aren't. If they give a non-US address, the campaign is supposed to get some other proof of nationality. By the way, that page also explains that the first part of your question is slightly wrong. It isn't only US citizens who are allowed to donate - US nationals (a rather rare category consisting mostly of people from certain US territories) and permanent residents are also eligible.
My question is this in fact unique? Have any other cases in the US federal courts been decided at the appeals or higher level based upon a dead judge's written opinion, and if so, have they then survived appeal? This happens roughly a couple of times a year on average in the U.S. Courts of Appeal, usually when an opinion has been agreed to in principle and a final draft of the opinion has been approved, but release of the opinion is delayed, for example, to allow the dissenting opinion in the case to be completed prior to publication of the decision. The blog "How Appealing" regularly reports this practice when it happens, although its accounts of this practice are not comprehensive. To the best of my knowledge, no appellate court opinion has ever been reversed on appeal because a judge died prior to its publication. For comparison's sake, in the most recent year for which statistics are available (2017) the U.S. Courts of Appeal handled 60,877 cases, so this happens in less than one in 30,000 cases (you have to combine the regional U.S. Courts of Appeal and the Federal Circuit which is reported separately for statistical purposes to get the total).
No In accordance with Article II Clause 3, once the votes are counted (and any deadlock resolved) the President has been chosen. At that point, the election is final.
Standing requirements are different in state and federal courts, and from one state to the next. A random individual would not have standing to object to a stranger's abortion in federal court, and likely not in any state court, under normal circumstances, as they are not injured in any meaningful way by the abortion. I don't know what the normal rules of standing are in Texas, but it is likely perfectly acceptable for the Legislature to wave its wand to grant standing to whomever it wants regarding any violation of the law it sees for. That seems to be what is happening here.