SCOTUS: Donald Trump had presidential immunity when he committed crimes

Everyone knew that the Spring 2024 session of the Supreme Court’s docket was going to yield some truly god-awful decisions, but it feel like we’re being inundated every single day with some new SCOTUS travesty. Last week, SCOTUS basically overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year legal principle which effectively allowed government agencies to regulate businesses in good faith within ambiguous laws and statutes. Last week, SCOTUS also gave a wide berth to local authorities who want to arrest homeless people for sleeping on the streets. On the same day, the Court basically questioned whether insurrectionists could be or should be charged with obstruction. On Monday, SCOTUS released their decision on presidential immunity. This is Donald Trump’s case, where Trump is basically arguing that as president, he has criminal immunity across the board and he can commit criminal acts in an official capacity. The court agreed with Trump, in that they also believe he is immune from prosecution for all of the crimes he committed during his presidency, up to and including inciting an insurrection.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, ruled that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers — and is entitled to a presumption of immunity for his official acts, but lacks immunity for unofficial acts. But at the same time, the court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of former President Donald Trump’s actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.

That part of the court’s decision likely ensures that the case against Trump won’t be tried before the election, and then only if he is not reelected. If he is reelected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him, or he might try to pardon himself in the two pending federal cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s decision, joined by his fellow conservatives. Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Roberts acknowledged that the case was unprecedented.

“No court has thus far considered how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts,” he wrote, while chiding the lower courts for rendering “their decisions on a highly expedited basis.” He said the lower courts “did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial.” Roberts wrote that “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized,” but the opinion also undermined some of the key charges against the former president.

“Certain allegations — such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General — are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” he wrote. In other words, “Trump is … absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

Monday’s decision to send the case back to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan all but guarantees that there will be no Trump trial on the election interference charges for months. Even before the immunity case, Judge Chutkan indicated that trial preparations would likely take three months. Now, she will also have to decide which of the charges in the Trump indictment should remain and which involve official acts that under the Supreme Court ruling are protected from prosecution.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority “in effect, completely insulate[s] Presidents from criminal liability.”

“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,” she wrote. “Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, … the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.”

[From NPR]

While the entire decision is a sh-tshow, this is especially galling: “Trump is … absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.” As in, Trump – or any president?? – can order the Attorney General to drop prosecutions of his cronies, Trump and the AG can collude on criminal acts and the AG can basically act as Trump’s in-house mob lawyer. That’s not how any of this is supposed to work. As many have said, the right-wing justices have left such a broad interpretation for presidential immunity, it would be funny if President Biden tried to test out the ruling. I mean, SCOTUS just said that the president can commit all manner of crimes if he cloaks them as “official, presidential acts.” President Biden could dismantle the Supreme Court, imprison those six justices without due process and say that it’s an official act – it’s his duty as president to save the republic from a fascist reactionary court.

joe biden now has the opportunity to create several scotus vacancies in the funniest ways possible

— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) July 1, 2024

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Avalon Red.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pLHLnpmirJOdxm%2BvzqZmcW9obH91e9Kcpq2to5SxsLrApZuYrKKqurGrx5qbmKiimsCqsMSnq6KZnJS2rrnUp6CtsY%2Bstaa6vqGcmJuforqqwNOem5ibop66pr%2BO