Supreme Court grants Trump and future presidents special exception that will delay lawsuits

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed former President Donald Trump what may be the most favorable legal ruling he could have reasonably hoped for in his fight against federal prosecution over his attempts to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election.

The justices split along ideological lines in a 6-3 decision issued July 1, 2024, in which the conservative-dominated court said a former president enjoys some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office.

The majority's use of the word “some,” however, obscures the extent to which its opinion ensures that it will be much harder for special counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump for actions taken around the 2020 election, much less win those cases.

And depending on the extent to which future presidents take advantage of the court's broad legal protections, the decision could also produce fundamental changes in the country's system of checks and balances among the three branches of government and in the legal system's ability to ensure that the president follows the law.

Former President Donald Trump at his 78th birthday celebration. Joe Raedle/Getty Images Case History

At issue in the case was whether the former president could be prosecuted for actions he committed in connection with the 2020 election. Smith originally filed a lawsuit against Trump in August 2023, alleging that Trump violated four criminal statutes, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against voter rights.

Trump argued on appeal that he could not be criminally prosecuted because he enjoyed absolute immunity for any official act performed while in office.

Government prosecutors have countered that the president is not above the law and that, given existing safeguards in the criminal justice system designed to mitigate politically motivated prosecutions, Trump should be held accountable.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan had previously sided with the government and rejected Trump's appeal in December 2023. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with her decision, writing in February 2024 that President Trump had become a Trump citizen and therefore did not benefit from any special protections from criminal prosecution.

After initially declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court agreed to hear it on February 28, 2024, and heard oral arguments on April 25, 2024.

The decision comes after what appeared to many to be an excessive, if not intentional, delay.

Setting the limits

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump's claim that he enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts committed while president, as well as the government's assertion that a former president is not above the law and can be criminally prosecuted for any actions taken while in office.

Instead, the court ruled that some of the crimes Trump is accused of committing are protected by immunity, but others may not.

The judges sent the case back to the lower court to distinguish between alleged crimes that are now protected acts under the court's opinion and those that remain open to prosecution.

The landmark decision set general limits on the extent to which a president's behavior is protected from prosecution. To do so, the Court first determined that a president enjoys absolute immunity for acts committed in the course of his primary executive functions. These include powers explicitly granted to him by the Constitution, such as the power to pardon and remove executive branch officials, which are part of his exclusive authority that neither Congress nor the judiciary can interfere with.

For its non-core powers, which include all those not specifically enumerated in the text of the Constitution, such as the formulation of domestic policy, the Court has taken a more nuanced approach.

Attempting to balance the public interest in fair and effective law enforcement with the need for the presidency to act vigorously and without fear of unjustified prosecution, the majority held that the president enjoys at least presumptive immunity for all acts that fall within the outer scope of his official responsibility.

The court did not specify which acts fall within this outer perimeter.

In an earlier case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, for example, the Court ruled in 1981 that former President Richard Nixon’s instructions to the secretary of the Air Force about how it should be staffed and organized fell within that outer perimeter. In its Trump opinion, the Court emphasized that as long as the action does not manifestly or palpably exceed the perimeter, it must be considered official.

In these cases, the government must demonstrate that there is no danger of intrusion into the authority and functions of the executive branch before it can bring proceedings.

The Court also ruled in the immunity case that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for unofficial and private acts.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who indicted Donald Trump for his alleged actions to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images Next stop: Back in district court

The judges said it was up to the district court to determine which actions the indictment alleges Trump took were official and which were unofficial and therefore not protected by immunity.

He provided some guidelines for the lower court to follow.

First, immunity should extend to all acts that fall within the outer perimeter of the president's duties. Moreover, the president's motives cannot be considered in determining whether an act is “official” or “unofficial.” The Court also emphasized that testimony or private records of the president or his advisers related to his official conduct cannot be used at trial to support criminal charges for his unofficial conduct.

Because of the opinion, the first federal criminal trial of a former president won't begin anytime soon. Depending on how long it takes Judge Chutkan to determine which aspects of the indictment are still open for prosecution, it could very well be postponed until after the election.

And if Trump is re-elected president, no trial will take place before he leaves office. He could also order the Justice Department to drop federal prosecutions altogether.

“Lawless zone around the President

The Trump case is the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to determine whether and to what extent presidential immunity extends to criminal prosecutions of a former president.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberals Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, chided the majority, writing that its decision created a lawless zone around the president. Sotomayor argued that the majority ignored the text of the Constitution, misinterpreted history and precedent, and created an atextual, ahistorical and unjustifiable immunity that places the president above the law.

In a separate dissent, Jackson argued that the Court had invented a new form of legal liability, under which the president, and he alone, was exempt from criminal law. A future president who ordered the assassination of a political rival would have at least a fair chance of avoiding prosecution, she said.

It is not yet clear what effect this decision will have on future presidents. If this case against Trump is indeed, as the administration claims, a groundbreaking case, then the court may never again be called upon to determine how criminal law applies to the nation's chief executive.

If, however, the courts’ decision allows future presidents to act corruptly, even criminally, then the eternal rule set out in this opinion will have a major impact on the separation of powers between the three branches of government, potentially giving the president far more power than has been the case throughout American history. This will have enormous consequences for the functioning of the presidency and for the stability, if not the existence, of American democracy.

Sources 1/ https://Google.com/ 2/ https://theconversation.com/above-the-law-in-some-cases-supreme-court-gives-trump-and-future-presidents-a-special-exception-that-will-delay-his-prosecution-232907 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