The US Supreme Court hasruled that Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts conducted during his time as president but not unofficial acts. The ruling has a huge impact on cases connected to his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The former president’s defense has already been shot down by the federal judge overseeing the election interference case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith, as well as by a unanimous panel of appeals court judges, the latter writing that Trump’s attempts to stay in power after losing the vote to Joe Biden four years ago represented “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government.”
The court’s ruling could have profound consequences for holding former presidents accountable for crimes committed while occupying the White House.
But the court’s decision to take up the case – and to wait until the final day of its current session to issue a ruling – ensures that voters will not see a verdict in the case against Trump for unlawfully conspiring to overturn the last election before they cast their ballots in the next one this November.
CREW: ‘Today’s decision is dangerous and devastating’
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) President Noah Bookbinder, a former federal corruption prosecutor, released the following statement:
“Today’s decision is dangerous and devastating. Donald Trump’s attempts to claim absolute immunity do not hold up to even the barest scrutiny, but they have now largely been validated by our nation’s highest court. This threatens our system of democratic checks and balances by placing presidents above the rule of law, as well as throwing the future of Trump’s federal criminal cases into question.
“Despite this disastrous decision, Trump will likely still face charges for some of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his incitement of the insurrection. The District Court should move forward as quickly as possible to determine where immunity does and doesn’t apply in order to try the case this year.
“Accountability cannot wait. Congress must immediately enact legislation to prevent any president who engaged in insurrection against the Constitution—which two Colorado courts determined Trump did, and which the Supreme Court declined to absolve him of—from holding office again. The Court itself must acknowledge its ongoing ethics crisis and ensure that any justice who hears a case despite having a conflict of interest, as Justices Alito and Thomas appear to have done in this instance, faces consequences for violating the Court’s Code of Conduct and the law.”
Oliver O’Connell1 July 2024 16:30
What did Justice Barrett not agree with in the ruling?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion with an exception to part III.
Barrett disagrees with how the majority rules that evidence from Donald Trump’s official acts should be excluded from a trial on charges for unofficial acts, writing that there was no reason to depart from the “familiar and time-tested procedure” that would allow for such evidence to be included.
Oliver O’Connell1 July 2024 16:20
Who wrote the opinion, who agreed, and who dissented?
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BARRETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Read the full ruling here:
Oliver O’Connell1 July 2024 16:10
Full story: Supreme Court rules Donald Trump has some immunity in election interference case
In a 6-3 decision released on Monday, the court rejected the former president’s broad suggestion of total immunity but said some of the actions laid out in the federal election interference indictment related to his official acts are protected.
Alex Woodward and Ariana Baio report.
Oliver O’Connell1 July 2024 16:00
Alex Woodward explains what happens next:
This now gets kicked back to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s court. She will be tasked with determining whether all the actions listed in his indictment are “official” or “unofficial.”
There is absolutely no chance that will finish any time before the election or even after the inauguration, so Trump is not only granted a sweeping new metric for immunity if he’s in office again, but he gets even more delays and a diminishing prospect of any trial.
Oliver O’Connell1 July 2024 15:51
‘The President is now a king above the law’
The dissents are vivid and terrifying, outlining how dangerous this ruling is, and the majority dismisses them as “fear-mongering.”
Here, Justice Sotomayor lists acts that she now says are immune from prosecution:
Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark.
The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. … The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
Alex Woodward1 July 2024 15:44
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in dissent:
The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm. I fear that they are wrong. But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right.
In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent.
Oliver O’Connell1 July 2024 15:42
Decision makes ‘mockery’ of principle ‘that no man is above the law’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in dissent:
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
Oliver O’Connell1 July 2024 15:40