NO FINAL VERDICT
Donald Trump celebrates ‘big win’ after Supreme Court fails to decide if he can be tried over 2020 election claims
The Supreme Court partially agreed with the former commander-in-chief on his immunity claims
DONALD Trump is celebrating a major win after the Supreme Court made a decision in his immunity case, ruling that the former president has impunity only for "official acts" as commander in chief.
However, the court did not define what makes an act as president official versus unofficial.
3
3
3
Trump shared news of the decision on his social media platform Truth Social, calling it a "big win for our Constitution and democracy."
He also said he is "proud to be an American!"
In a historic 6-3 ruling, the higher court's decision will still allow the continuation of Trump's pretrial proceedings in , where he's facing federal charges related to conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results during his final days in office - but still leaves whether or not he will face charges in his federal trial up in the air.
In an unprecedented ruling, the court ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.
The court looked at four categories of conduct within Trump's indictment.
His discussions with officials in the Justice Department after the 2020 election, his alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of the election, his alleged role in assembling fake pro-Trump electors, and his conduct related to January 6.
The court ruled that the former president was absolutely immune for his conversations with Justice Department officials, but the higher court's historic decision Monday will now pass the responsibility on to the lower courts to determine whether Trump has immunity for the other three categories.
It also sends the case back to the lower courts to decide what constitutes an official act as president, which may still allow Trump's case in Washington DC to go to trial.
Most read in The US Sun
The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all voted against the majority ruling.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor decried this decision as a "mockery" of America's justice system.
“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency," Sotomayor wrote.
"It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackon argued that the decision creates a "law-free zone around the President."
Donald Trump judge will not throw out evidence in Mar-a-Lago docs case in explosive decision hours before Biden debate
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote.
"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."
Sotomayor added that even if these "nightmare scenarios" never happen, the damage has already been done.
"The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably," she wrote.
"In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
ELECTION INTERFERENCE
Metal barricades were installed by marshals hours before the higher court's final decisions were released on Monday.
The decision came four days after Trump and rival locked horns in the first presidential debate on Thursday.
The ruling also came after a series of decisions by the court on Friday, including one that found the Department of Justice overstepped its authority by charging hundreds of people who stormed the capital on January 6 with obstruction.
However, prosecutors can still charge them with obstruction if they can prove they were there to stop the certification of the 2020 election - which is what prosecutors allege, charging Trump with obstruction, conspiracy, and other charges for orchestrating the events of that day.
One of Trump's worries was that if the case did go to trial, it would've interfered with and run well into the heart of the 2024 presidential election.
What does the Trump ruling mean for his campaign?
The Supreme Court ruled on July 1 that preisdents have immunity from official acts while in office but not as private citizens.
Now, the question is if former President Donald Trump can be indicted in the lower courts.
Currently, Trump's case regarding his actions during the January 6, 2021, attacks on the US Capitol was sent back to trial court.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, was sent instructions to determine which actions in the indictment constitute official conduct and if they should be dropped from the case.
The highest court ruled that "a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority."
"There is no immunity of unofficial acts," the ruling continued.
Special prosecutor Jack Smith, who brought the case against Trump, will now have to restructure his argument due to the new ruling.
Smith will have to argue whether Trump, who was president on January 6, undertook actions in his official capacity.
But after this ruling, it is highly unlikely that if there is a trial, it will start before the election.
US Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith brought the charges against Trump in August 2023, alleging that the former president and others orchestrated a scheme to keep him in power despite losing the 2020 election to Biden - including the events of January 6.
Trump, who pleaded not guilty, filed a motion to dismiss the charges, citing the principle of presidential immunity.
His defense team argued that their client was entitled to "absolute immunity," partly because the acts were allegedly committed while he was still in office.
They claimed that Trump first had to be impeached by the for the charges to be filed against him.
The defense also argued that a sitting president should conduct his duties "unhesitatingly, without fear" of future prosecutions by political opponents.
In a statement, a senior Biden campaign adviser said that today's ruling "doesn't change the facts."
"Since January 6, Trump has only grown more unhinged. He's promising to be a dictator 'on day one.'
"The American people already rejected Donald Trump's self-obsessed quest for power once - Joe Biden will make sure they reject it for good in November," the statement read.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the decision was a sad day for America "and a sad day for our democracy."
'ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY' ARGUMENT
To back his case, Trump repeatedly cited George Washington's farewell address, arguing that even the Founding Fathers understood that allowing presidents to be prosecuted would be bad for the nation.
However, Special Counsel Smith shot down Trump's argument, highlighting former president Richard Nixon's 1974 pardon.
In June 1972, Nixon was caught in the crossfire of the Watergate scandal that led to criminal charges against five men who were caught breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington DC.
Nixon, who was seeking a second term in at the time, denied any involvement in the scandal.
But, in February 1974, a federal grand jury was planning to present charges of bribery, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice against the president, according to National Archive documents.
Who is Judge Tanya Chutkan?
Tanya Chutkan has been the US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia since her appointment in June 2014.
She presided over the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, who is accused of trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election resulting in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Born in Kingston, Jamaica, Chutkan received her BA in Economics from George Washington State University and her JD from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
She worked as a trial attorney and supervisor at the District of Columbia Public Defender Service, arguing appellate cases and trying more than 30 cases.
After 11 years at PDS, she joined Boies, Schiller, & Flexner LLP, specializing in litigation and white-collar criminal defense.
Chutkan was previously a member of the Steering Committee for the District of Columbia Bar's Criminal Law and Individual Rights Section.
She also served as a faculty member at the Harvard Law School Trial Advocacy Workshop.
Source:
As prepared to impeach Nixon, the president resigned on August 9, 1974, leading Vice President Gerald Ford to assume the presidency.
Ford pardoned Nixon a month after taking office, protecting him from criminal prosecution.
To dismiss Donald Trump's claims, Special Counsel Jack Smith argued why Nixon needed President Ford's pardon in 1974 if he couldn't have been prosecuted in the first place.
In December 2023, Trump's attempts to dismiss the charges were dismissed by a US District Court in Washington DC, ruling that the Constitution does not support his immunity claims.
An appeals court also unanimously ruled against Trump, who proceeded to file an emergency motion to take his case to the Supreme Court.
The higher court's decision wasn't the first time it has chimed in regarding a judicial process involving a president.
In 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed a sexual harassment lawsuit against President to proceed while he was still in office.
However, unlike Donald Trump, the accusations against Clinton occurred years before his presidency, while he was governor of .
Plaintiff Paula Jones and Clinton eventually settled the case.
READ MORE SUN STORIES
Similar suits were filed against presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman but were dismissed by the higher court.
One lawsuit against President John F. Kennedy, involving a car accident during his 1960 campaign, was settled.
Topics