MMore than two months after hearing oral arguments, the Supreme Court on Monday partially upheld former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution for actions he committed while in office. In a decision split 6-3 along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents are largely immune from prosecution for official acts, but not for actions they took in office that were not part of their professional responsibilities – a decision that It will have significant consequences for Trump’s remaining criminal cases and the future of the American presidency.
“Under our system of separate powers, the President cannot be prosecuted for exercising his fundamental constitutional powers and is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts,” says the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. “This immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”
The historic decision marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered whether a president can be prosecuted for actions he committed while in office. “The president does not enjoy immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official,” the decision continues. “The president is not above the law. But Congress cannot criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out executive responsibilities. Branch under the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court offered some specific guidance on the conduct at issue in the criminal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith against Trump over his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Roberts wrote for the conservative majority that Trump is “absolutely immune.” of prosecution for his alleged conduct related to conversations with Justice Department officials about launching investigations into voter fraud and possible fraudulent voter lists. But the Supreme Court offered no answers about other conduct alleged in Smith’s indictment, writing that additional proceedings at the lower court level are needed to determine whether Trump can be prosecuted for his alleged attempt to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject the decision. Electoral College vote and its interactions with state officials, private individuals, and voters regarding voter fraud and violence on January 6.
Sending these questions back to a lower court virtually guarantees that Trump’s federal trial in Washington, D.C. will be delayed until after voters decide in November whether to return Trump to the White House.
“In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissenting opinion, joined by the other two liberal justices. “Today’s decision to grant criminal immunity to former presidents reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It mocks the principle, fundamental to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”
Still, Roberts warned, “Trump asserts much broader immunity than the limited one we recognize.” The Chief Justice added: “As for the dissents, they strike a tone of frightening condemnation that is completely disproportionate to what the Court actually does today. —conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the president and his attorney general, and then send to lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity. “
During oral arguments, Trump’s lawyers argued that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts related to the presidency, claiming they could only be criminally prosecuted if they were first charged and convicted by Congress. . The Supreme Court rejected that argument: “Making the political process of impeachment a necessary step in the application of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government,” Roberts wrote. Trump’s lawyers argued that without blanket immunity, presidents would not be able to function as commander in chief while worrying about potential criminal charges in the future.
Lower courts have previously rejected that argument, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, DC. But Justice Samuel Alito noted during oral arguments that presidents are in a “peculiarly precarious position” given the high-stakes decisions they have to make. do and the enormous amount of power they wield. “This case will have effects that go far beyond this particular charge,” he said during arguments. Justices Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, two of Trump’s three appointees to the high court, have raised the specter of overzealous prosecutors targeting former presidents after they leave office. “I am not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives,” Gorsuch said.
Smith, who brought the charges against Trump, he wrote to the Supreme Court that, even if it concludes that there is some level of immunity for official acts, a trial focusing on Trump’s private actions in the prosecution could still begin. Trump’s “use of official power was merely an additional means of achieving a private objective – perpetuating his mandate – that can be prosecuted on the basis of private conduct,” Smith told the Supreme Court.
Originally, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had scheduled Trump’s trial in the Smith case to begin on March 4, but Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in a delay in proceedings, clearing the way for his records case commercials in New York were the first. to come to trial. Trump was found guilty and convicted on all 34 counts in that case and is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. Trump also faces criminal charges in Florida and Georgia. If Trump is elected president again, he could order the Justice Department to dismiss federal charges against him.
This story originally appeared on Time.com read the full story
