Liberal Free Chat Zone

[ksquared]

More details: Supreme Court affirms ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts in Trump case
By Ryan King Published July 1, 2024 Updated July 1, 2024, 10:42 a.m. ET

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump enjoys “absolute” immunity from prosecution for “official acts” during his presidency, although it left the exact extent of that protection for lower courts to decide.

The high court’s 6-3 ruling vacated an earlier decision by a DC federal judge and cleared the way for more appeals by Trump’s legal team that could set the trial schedule in the 2020 election case against him back months or years — if it ever happens.

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”

“The President therefore 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,” Roberts added. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”

Lawyers for Trump, 78, who appointed three of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, unfurled a legal theory of sweeping protection from prosecution for any acts undertaken while in office in a bid to quash the four-count case against the former president.

The 45th president is accused of criminally attempting “to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit” to obstruct the electoral vote process, “impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified” and working “against the right to vote and to have that vote counted.”

The former president’s camp claimed his efforts were “official acts” protected by his office, but special counsel Jack Smith argued they are still subject to criminal prosecution.

Last week, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that narrowed the use of an obstruction charge in the case, but prosecutors have conveyed confidence that the decision won’t thwart the main thrust of their case.

Presiding US District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s “immunity” theory last year in a decision that was later upheld by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in February.

Chutkan put proceedings in the case on hold pending the Supreme Court appeal.

During one eye-catching exchange in the circuit court, Judge Florence Pan posed a hypothetical scenario featuring “a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival (and is) not impeached” and asked, “Would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Trump lawyer John Sauer answered that a president would have to be impeached and convicted first. He claimed that immunity applied to presidential but not personal conduct.

Sauer claimed that such immunity was covered by the Constitution and Executive Vesting Clause, which bestows the president with executive power.

Slam dunk? Not so fast
Initially, many legal experts posited that Smith’s position against “absolute” immunity was a slam-dunk and anticipated the Supreme Court would spurn Trump’s plea for a get-out-of-jail-free card.

But during oral arguments before the top court in April, it was clear that its conservative majority was agonizing over the question, seemingly hunting for some sort of middle ground and insinuating that the lower courts didn’t do enough due diligence on it.

Arguments from both sides lasted about two hours and 40 minutes, notably longer than usual. The conservative justices fretted that tossing out Trump’s immunity case carte blanche could pave the way for politically laced tit-for-tat prosecutions against presidents down the road.

“I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives,” Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed at one point.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages.”

The justices mused that most prosecutors are easily able to get a grand jury to hand down indictments and fretted that an absence of any presidential immunity could be destabilizing because chief executives would become prime targets for such tactics.

In the run-up to the top court’s decision, President Biden stayed largely mum but said he “can’t think of one” reason why presidents should have total immunity from prosecution.

Trump didn’t need to win
Former President Trump only needed to delay the case because of the upcoming election — and he succeeded.

If he wins a second term Nov. 5, he could theoretically tell the Justice Department to unravel the federal cases against him.

Another possibility — although an untested one — is that Trump could attempt to pardon himself.

“We’ve never answered whether a president can do that,” Gorsuch mused during oral arguments. “Happily, it’s never been presented to us.”

In addition to the 2020 election subversion case, Smith is prosecuting Trump in the 40-count Mar-a-Lago document case, in which he is accused of illegally hoarding troves of classified papers after leaving the White House.

Trump is also facing a 10-count racketeering indictment for 2020 election tampering in Georgia, bringing his total pending charges up to 54. He has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to all of them.

Thus far, none of those three cases have trial start dates. Trump is waging a separate effort to derail the Georgia case.

Trump was already found guilty in May on 34 counts in his Manhattan hush-money case and is set to face sentencing on July 11 — just days before the Republican National Convention.

SCOTUS finishes up its term
Monday marks a rare foray into July for the Supreme Court in recent years, as it typically wraps up its term by the end of June.

But its term had proven to be jammed-packed with politically fraught and consequential cases, including those involving abortion, firearms, unions, Big Tech censorship, redistricting, Chevron Deference and more.

Earlier this year, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor complained about the grueling schedule. She is facing pressure from some progressives to step down while Dems still have political power to replace her.

“Cases are bigger. They’re more demanding. The number of amici are greater, and you know that our emergency calendar is so much more active. I’m tired,” she said, according to Bloomberg Law.

“There used to be a time when we had a good chunk of the summer break. Not anymore. The emergency calendar is busy almost on a weekly basis.”

At the moment, the high court has just shy of two dozen cases on its list for the next term, which is due to begin Oct. 7. One of them is a high-profile challenge against a Tennessee law on transgenderism.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/01/us-news/supreme-court-affirms-absolute-immunity-for-official-acts-in-trump-case/