The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Monday whether former President Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution, a monumental ruling that comes just days after the court withdrew a ruling that cast doubt on the charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 protesters. and Trump himself.
The stakes are as high as Trump’s request to the court is broad. The former president is begging the court to dismiss his Jan. 6 federal case with his immunity claims.
While the court could reject the broad immunity sought by Trump, several justices signaled an opening during April arguments to create some form of protection from criminal prosecution for former executives.
“The question is — as we explored a little here today — how to separate private conduct from official conduct that may or may not enjoy some immunity,” Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the court’s six conservatives, said in April. .
The immunity ruling comes on the heels of another Jan. 6-related case decided Friday that restricted the use of obstruction from an official proceeding charge levied against many of those who stormed the Capitol.
“Great news!” Trump wrote in Truth Social reacting to the Supreme Court decision.
It also follows Thursday’s presidential debate, where a shaky performance from President Biden has left some Democrats more worried than ever about the possibility of Trump winning the election in November and earning another four years in the White House.
The Supreme Court normally concludes its summer decision-making at the end of June, but is headed for an extension to directly evaluate Trump’s case, weighing whether he is fully immune from the charges.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced Friday that “all remaining opinions” of the Supreme Court will be released on Monday starting at 10 a.m. EDT. The immunity decision will come down alongside decisions on three other cases that have been heard.
The justices spent a lot of time in April asking what actions would qualify as official actions for which a president could enjoy immunity, versus personal actions for which they would not.
Trump’s legal team suggested during arguments that even a president who ordered the assassination of his political rival could be protected from prosecution.
It seems unlikely that the court will take the case to that logical extreme, but even a more nuanced ruling could bring benefits to Trump, who in all his criminal cases has embraced a strategy of seeking delay whenever possible.
The court could establish an immunity test that offers some protections to a former president, sending the case back to the district court for Judge Tanya Chutkan to evaluate whether Trump’s actions met her criteria.
This could result in a long battle in which Chutkan will determine that Trump is not yet immune from prosecution, facing appeal in the high court once again.
Trump has repeatedly presented his immunity defense on Truth Social since the April oral arguments, but because the justices have not yet announced their decision, the topic was not addressed in Thursday’s presidential debate.
On Friday, the court also cast a shadow over one of the four charges Trump faces in the election interference case, as it sided with another Jan. 6 defendant fighting the same charge.
Five of the Supreme Court’s six conservatives, joined by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the Justice Department extended the law too broadly, casting doubt on the cases of more than 300 Jan. 6 defendants.
Trump is accused of violating the same provision of the law, Section 1512(c)(2), as well as another subsection of the same statute. He pleaded not guilty.
The Jan. 6 ruling announced Friday returns the case of Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, to a lower court for further consideration.
In a concurring opinion, Jackson said the ruling does not preclude prosecution under Section 1512(c)(2), writing that the charge “remains available” for consideration by lower courts.
In addition to Trump’s immunity case, the justices are also weighing the constitutionality of social media laws passed in Florida and Texas that restrict how big platforms can moderate content in light of conservatives’ concerns that they were being censored.
And in a case closely watched by anti-regulatory interests, the high court will decide when the statute of limitations clock will start ticking for challenges to government regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
