Former presidents are immune from prosecution for official actions taken while in the White House, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday, but do not have immunity for unofficial acts — abroad new definition of presidential power that may stand for generations and will likely mean more months of delay for Donald Trump’s pending election-interference trial.
The 6-3 decision along ideological lines appears to rule out one set of allegations in Trump’s federal election-interference trial, involving his conversations with Justice Department officials after Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory,and signals other parts of the case against him may proceed only after additional lower court rulings.
It seems highly unlikely that the 45th president will go to trial on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election before voters cast ballots in this year’s presidential contest, in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, a president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
But Roberts added, the president “enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”
The court’s three liberal justices forcefully dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the conservative majority “gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.”
The majority “reshapes the institution of the presidency” and “makes a mockery of the principle” that “no man is above the law,” wrote Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
The majority left it up to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which crimes alleged in the indictment were unofficial acts by the then-president — a formula that seems likely to further narrow the scope of the charges Trump faces and add significant time and further appeals to the case.
Monday’s decision “creates more heat than light,” said former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz. “Rather than finding either clear immunity or no immunity for alleged criminal conduct, this new standard will unquestionably lead to protracted hearings and further appeals as the lower courts have to now grapple with the question of which allegations in the indictment constitute official acts.”
Trump became the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime in an unrelated New York case in May. He has tried to push his three remaining criminal trials until after the November election, raising the prospect that if he is reelected, he could press the Justice Department to drop the federal charges against him once he takes office.
The justices’ decision to hear Trump’s unprecedented immunity claims in the D.C. case — rather than let stand a unanimous appeals court decision that had denied immunity and greenlighted Trump’s prosecution — effectively halted all preparations for the federal trial, which originally was set to start March 4.
The justices held oral argument for the case in late April, making it likely that a decision would not come before the final days of the term. The timing was assailed by Trump’s critics, who say the American public deserves to know the outcome of the D.C. trial before voting for the next president.
Special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump with four felonies connected to his alleged plan to stay in power after Biden’s 2020 victory: conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to obstruct the formal certification of Biden’s win in Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, obstructing a congressional proceeding, and conspiracy against rights — in this case, the right to vote.
Trump challenged the D.C. indictment, saying former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution, at least for actions related to their official duties, unless first impeached and convicted by Congress.
During oral argument, Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, acknowledged that the former president could be prosecuted for private acts while in office — though he argued most of Trump’s alleged conduct, including interactions with the Republican National Committee, constituted official acts.
Trump is accused of using false claims of massive voter fraud to pressure state officials, the Justice Department and former vice president Mike Pence to change the election results; scheming with others to submit to Congress slates of phony electors from swing states and to get lawmakers to toss out lawful ballots; and encouraging supporters to gather at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, where a violent mob stopped the certification of Biden’s victory for many hours.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday was emphatic that Trump’s discussions with Justice Department officials after the 2020 election, trying to convince them to aggressively pursue his unfounded claims of election fraud, were shielded by presidential immunity.
“Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials,” the court ruled, adding that presidents are allowed to discuss investigations and prosecutions with Justice Department officials.
The high court found the line was less clear when it came to his conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence, and to what Trump’s said publicly in the run-up to the Jan. 6 riot.
Most of a president’s public statements “are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities,” though there may be situations in which the President speaks unofficially, “perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader.”
The opinion also suggested that the indictment may have mischaracterized the overall tenor of Trump’s statements before the riot, saying it includes “includes only select Tweets and brief snippets of the speech Trump delivered on the morning of Jan. 6, omitting its full text or context.”
Knowing what else the then-president said, or who was involved in posting those statements and organizing the rally, “could be relevant to the classification of each communication,” the majority wrote.
There were not many cases from history for the justices to turn to for guidance to resolve the competing claims in Trump v. United States. Forty years ago, in a case involving President Richard M. Nixon, the Supreme Court said the Constitution shields presidents from private civil lawsuits for actions taken as part of their official duties — even those at the “outer perimeter” of their responsibilities.
That decision aimed to ensure the threat of civil litigation did not distract from a president’s duties. But it did not address criminal liability.
After the D.C. Circuit ruling, written jointly by judges nominated by presidents of both parties, it took almost two weeks for the Supreme Court to announce in late February that it would review the immunity case. The justices scheduled oral argument for late April, making it unlikely that a decision would come before the final days of the term. The decision to hear the case, and the timing of how the justices did it, was assailed by Trump’s critics, who say the American public should know the outcome of the D.C. trial before casting ballots for the next president in November.
When they decided to take the case, the justices rephrased the question they would consider to address “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
At oral argument, many justices seemed interested in how to distinguish between a president’s actions that are private and those that are part of official duties — and therefore may be protected by some level of immunity.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
Source link : https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-supreme-court-ruling/
Author :
Publish date : 2024-07-01 13:47:32
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.