Supreme Court rules Trump has limited immunity in Jan. 6 case, jeopardizing pre-election trial

CNN-

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump can claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the final days of his presidency, a decision that will likely further delay the trial on election subversion charges federal action against him.

In the most closely watched case before the Supreme Court this year, the ruling overturns a February federal appeals court decision that found Trump lacked immunity for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to overturn the 2020 election results.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in a 6-3 vote, with liberal justices dissenting. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a lengthy and highly scathing dissent in which she lambasted the court's decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion Monday: “We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president enjoy some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office. At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, that immunity must be absolute.”

The president has no immunity for his unofficial actions, and not everything he does is unofficial. The president is not above the law, Roberts also wrote.

The chief justice said the trial court will have to assess whether Trump's alleged conduct is immune under the high court's new test, and the opinion says additional briefing will be needed for the trial court to do so.

We therefore remand to the district court to determine at first instance, with the aid of the information we lack, whether Trump's conduct in this area can be considered official or unofficial, wrote Roberts, who said there was a lack of factual analysis in previous lower court opinions rejecting Trump's immunity.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed frustration with the way the court sent the case back for further proceedings.

I would have phrased the underlying legal issues differently, Barrett wrote in an agreement. She suggested that because Trump's overall challenge to the indictment had failed, at least part of the case could move forward.

A president under indictment can challenge the constitutionality of a criminal law as applied to the official acts alleged in the indictment, Barrett wrote.

However, if this challenge fails, he will have to be tried, she added.

She took issue with the way the court decided that evidence of Trump's official acts should be excluded from the trial, writing that there was no reason to depart from the familiar and time-tested procedure that would allow such evidence to be included.

The decision was quickly hailed by Trump, who called it a HUGE VICTORY FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY on Truth Social. His legal team believes that it is possible that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case is now completely compromised because any communication Trump had with then-Vice President Mike Pence or Justice Department officials could be considered on the record, preventing him from being presented at trial.

The team also said it might even help Trump in the classified documents case, though the initial opinions don't necessarily mean that's how the legal process will ultimately play out.

In a media call following Monday's court ruling, the Biden campaign attacked the conflicted and compromised Supreme Court, accusing the justices of handing Trump the keys to a dictatorship.

The Supreme Court has made clear that unofficial actions do not benefit from immunity, and Smith has long indicated that he believes he can proceed with the case based on those unofficial actions. In that sense, if Smith were to reduce his indictment, lower courts could hear Trump’s trial this year.

But the Supreme Court also left a lot of work for lower courts to figure out what constitutes an official act versus a private act.

Perhaps even more important, the majority made it clear that official acts cannot be considered evidence in any eventual trial, which could make it much more difficult for Smith to demonstrate the Trump's motive and other aspects of his case against Trump. Roberts wrote that lower courts cannot look into a former president's motive.

Some allegations, such as those involving Trump's discussions with the acting attorney general, are easily categorized in light of the nature of the president's official relationship with the office held by that individual, Roberts wrote.

Other allegations such as those involving Trump's interactions with the vice president, state officials and certain private parties, as well as his comments to the general public, pose more difficult questions, Roberts wrote.

But Roberts said it is up to the lower courts to decide whether such actions are subject to immunity, and that analysis is ultimately best left to the lower courts to make at first instance.

Sotomayor, writing for the two other liberal justices, said the court's decision mocked the fundamental principle of our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.

When he uses his official powers in any way, the majority reasoned, he will now be immune from criminal prosecution. Does he order Navy Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immunized. Does he stage a military coup to hold on to power? Immunized. Does he accept a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immunized. Immunized, immune, immune, Sotomayor wrote.

Let the president break the law, let him exploit the pitfalls of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil. Because if he knew that he might one day be held accountable for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the message of the majority today, Sotomayor also wrote. Even if these nightmare scenarios never come to pass, and I pray they never do, the damage is done. The relationship between the president and the people he serves has changed irrevocably. In every exercise of official power, the president is now a king above the law.

Out of fear for our democracy, I disagree, Sotomayor concluded.

This story has been updated with additional developments and reactions.

CNN's Paula Reid, Nikki Carvajal and Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.

Sources 1/ https://Google.com/ 2/ https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity/index.html The mention sources can contact us to remove/changing this article

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos