Dailymaverick logo

Newsdeck

This article is more than a year old

Newsdeck

US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for any actions that were within his constitutional powers as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.
Reuters
Trump-guilty-verdict Former US President Trump attends hush money criminal trial Former US President Donald Trump leaves the courthouse after a jury found him guilty of all 34 felony counts in his criminal trial at New York State Supreme Court on 30 May 2024. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Justin Lane / Pool)

By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision that had rejected Trump's claim of immunity from federal criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority, while its three liberal members dissented.

Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Biden, a Democrat, in the Nov. 5 U.S. election in a 2020 rematch. The Supreme Court's slow handling of the case, coupled with its decision to return key questions about the scope of Trump's immunity to lower courts to resolve, make it improbable he will be tried on the election subversion charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith charges before the election.

"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," Roberts wrote.

Immunity for former presidents is "absolute" with respect to their "core constitutional powers," Roberts wrote, and a former president has "at least a presumptive immunity" for "acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility," meaning that prosecutors face a high legal bar to overcome that presumption.

Roberts cited the need for presidents to "execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly" without the threat of prosecution.

"As for a president's unofficial acts," Roberts added, "there is no immunity."

Trump hailed the ruling in a social media post, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"

The court analyzed four categories of conduct contained in Trump's indictment. They are: his discussions with U.S. Justice Department officials following the election; his alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to block congressional certification of Biden's win; his alleged role in assembling fake pro-Trump electors to be used in the certification process; and his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

The outcome gave Trump much of what he sought but stopped short of allowing absolute immunity for all official acts, as his lawyers had advocated. Instead the court specified that actions within the president's "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" enjoy such a shield, while those taken outside his exclusive powers are only "presumptively immune."

The court found Trump was absolutely immune for conversations with Justice Department officials. Trump is also "presumptively immune" regarding his interactions with Pence, it decided, but returned that and the two other categories to lower courts to determine whether Trump has immunity.

The ruling marked the first time since the nation's 18th century founding that the Supreme Court has declared that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in any instance. The court's conservative majority includes three justices Trump appointed.

The court decided the case on the last day of its term.

Trump, 78, is the first former U.S. president to be criminally prosecuted as well as the first former president convicted of a crime. Smith's election subversion charges embody one of the four criminal cases Trump has faced.

 

'PRESIDENT IS NOW A KING'

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, delivered a sharply worded dissent, saying the ruling effectively creates a "law-free zone around the president."

"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," Sotomayor wrote.

"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," Sotomayor added.

UCLA School of Law professor Rick Hasen, a critic of Trump's efforts to overturn his election defeat, said: "The Supreme Court has put out a fact-intensive test on the boundaries of the president's immunity - with a huge thumb on the scale favoring the president's immunity - in a way that will surely push this case past the election."

"Sorting out the court's opinion and how it applies is going to take a while," Georgetown University law professor Erica Hashimoto added. "No chance of a pre-election trial."

Trump's trial had been scheduled to start on March 4 before the delays over the immunity issue. Now, no trial date is set. Trump made his immunity claim to the trial judge in October, meaning the issue has been litigated for about nine months.

In the special counsel's August 2023 indictment, Trump was charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, corruptly obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to do so, and conspiring against the right of Americans to vote. He has pleaded not guilty.

The Biden campaign said in a statement that "Trump has only grown more unhinged. He's promising to be a dictator 'on day one,' calling for our Constitution to be 'terminated' so he can regain power, and promising a 'bloodbath' if he loses."

Trump had argued that he is immune from prosecution because he was serving as president when he took the actions that led to the charges. During April 25 arguments in the case, Trump's lawyer said without immunity sitting presidents would face "blackmail and extortion" by political rivals due to the threat of future prosecution.

Sotomayor wrote on Monday: "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."

In a separate case brought in New York state court, Trump was found guilty by a jury in Manhattan on May 30 on 34 counts of falsifying documents to cover up hush money paid to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal before the 2016 election. Trump also faces criminal charges in two other cases. He has pleaded not guilty in those and called all the cases against him politically motivated.

 

A PLODDING TIMELINE

Smith, seeking to avoid trial delays, had asked the justices in December to perform a fast-track review after Trump's immunity claim was rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that month. Rather than resolve the matter promptly, the justices denied Smith's request and let the case proceed in a lower court, which upheld Chutkan's ruling against Trump on Feb. 6.

The immunity ruling comes 20 weeks after Trump on Feb. 12 sought relief from the Supreme Court. By contrast, it took the court less than nine weeks in another major case to reinstate Trump to the presidential primary ballot in Colorado after he appealed a lower court's ruling that had disqualified him for engaging in an insurrection by inciting and supporting the attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

Not since its landmark Bush v. Gore decision, which handed the disputed 2000 U.S. election to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, has the Supreme Court played such an integral role in a presidential race.

If Trump regains the presidency, he could try to force an end to the prosecution or potentially pardon himself for any federal crimes.

Comments

Loading your account…
Ronnie 2 July 2024 08:20 AM

It sems to me that if Presidents are now above the law and can do what they like, Joe Biden could put Trump in irons and incarcerate him quite legally, as he might be perceived to be a threat to the State.

g***g@u***.online 2 July 2024 09:52 AM

It would seem to me that DM feels it is above journalism ethics and is now a political advocate rather than providing fair and honest commentary. If you are going to play politics, at least be open about it and attempt to at least understand the legal framework under which the new Supreme Court ruling, overturned the Chevron Deference, which has determined that the administrative state can’t make up it’s own laws as they please, as they were attempting to do. There is no doubt that the legal attacks on the former president are unprecedented and outside of the US constitutional framework and have been a complete miscarriage of justice for the sole purpose of defeating a political opponent rather than ensuring the rule of law. Even liberal democrats are starting to question this mostly baseless attack on Trump but that has left others like the Clinton's and Obama's untouched for similar offenses such as creating the whole fake Russian interference hoax by using state security structures. It should be a lesson to all that you cannot simply make up the law as it suits you as Mr Zuma would love to do here in South Africa. Whether one likes or dislikes a particular politician should not influence your version of the truth and the law is often the only safeguard left for society often vulnerable to the whims of corrupt politicians. Your attempt to undermine the law due to your political standpoint, does no favour to your publication's reputation and standing. The silly inversion of the main picture in this post is rather an infantile attempt to show contempt for a former president - but would you have done so with Zuma?

a***y@i***.com 2 July 2024 12:48 PM

Mr Smith, your bias is showing.

Chris.Botha 2 July 2024 01:54 PM

Expertly crafted. Couldn't have said it better myself. I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective. Journalism is indeed built on the pillars of fairness, honesty, and impartiality. It is concerning to see certain media outlets, like DM, seemingly drifting away from these fundamental principles. When a news organization starts to act as a political advocate, it compromises its integrity and the trust of its readership. The recent Supreme Court ruling on Chevron Deference is a critical moment in reaffirming that administrative bodies must adhere to the legal framework and cannot legislate as they please. This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining checks and balances within our government structure to prevent overreach and ensure accountability. Furthermore, the legal proceedings against the former president do appear unprecedented and raise serious questions about their alignment with constitutional principles. When legal actions seem more politically motivated than rooted in the pursuit of justice, it erodes public trust in our legal system. The disparate treatment of various political figures, with some facing intense scrutiny and others seemingly evading accountability for similar actions, only deepens this distrust. Your comparison to Mr. Zuma's situation in South Africa is apt. The rule of law should be applied consistently, regardless of one's political standing. When media outlets and other institutions allow their political biases to dictate their actions and narratives, it does a disservice to society. Upholding the law and seeking the truth must remain paramount. In conclusion, it is vital for any publication to remain transparent about its biases and strive to understand and convey the legal and factual nuances of the issues it covers. Failing to do so not only harms the publication's reputation but also undermines the democratic principles it should be upholding. Your call for impartiality and adherence to the rule of law is a crucial reminder of the standards we must all strive to maintain.

Skinyela 2 July 2024 02:53 PM

It's a win for the citizens of the USA. I wonder why Daily Maverick makes it sounds that it is very important that Trump be tried before the November 5th Presidential election! Is that an admission that the charges are an attempt at defeating Trump through the courts of law? Let the voters decide. If Presidents do not enjoy some immunity for actions while in office they'll end up doing nothing, for fear of being prosecuted once they leave office.