The Supreme Court Granted Partial Immunity to Trump for Official Acts During His Term
The US Supreme Court's July 1 ruling granted former President Trump "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution" for official actions he took while in office and ruled that former President Donald Trump enjoys "some immunity" from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office and that he does not enjoy immunity for possible crimes in his non-official capacity.
Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling
This ruling will have important repercussions for the criminal cases against President Trump:
- Deferral of sentencing and/or dismissal of guilty plea in the hush payment and corporate fraud case at the request of Trump's lawyers on the grounds that many of the charges for the alleged offences could be considered to be activities of an official nature. Sentencing was scheduled for 11 July, but Judge Juan Merchán has announced that sentencing will be postponed until 18 September, "if it is still necessary".
- Prosecution of the alleged conspiracy to try to overturn the 2020 election results and charges related to the so-called January 6 riot on Capitol Hill are on hold as Jack Smith the special prosecutor in charge of the case must restructure the case against Trump and the evidence he may use based on the president's new immunity rules. Communications he had with Justice Department officials over allegations of voter fraud cannot be used against him as they are clearly official actions, just as allegations against Trump of pressuring Vice President Mike Pence not to certify Joe Biden's election victory would also fall into the realm of official actions by the former president.
- Charges against Trump for allegedly interfering in Georgia's 2020 election are in doubt for the same reasons as the actions are considered official in nature because they occurred while he was still president. This case has already been postponed by an appeal by Trump's lawyers seeking to disqualify prosecutor Fani Willis and may be delayed further.
- The charges of withholding and possessing confidential classified documents already stayed will have to be reversed and stayed longer as Trump's lawyers argued that Trump's actions were official because he had designated the classified documents as part of his personal records while he was still in the White House. Monday's Supreme Court ruling could give him reason to reconsider the immunity issue, further delaying the proceedings. The chief justice also stated that testimony or private records of the president or his advisers are not admissible in court. The chief justice also stated that private testimony or records of the president or his advisers are not admissible in a court of law.
Us Supreme Court Delineates Presidential Immunity: Implications for Donald Trump and Future Presidents
Causes for the ruling.
- Need for clarification: There was legal ambiguity about the scope of presidential immunity, especially in cases of unofficial actions.
- Pending cases against Trump: The multiple indictments against former President Donald Trump brought to the forefront the question of the legal accountability of presidents.
- Balance of Powers: The Court seeks to maintain a balance between the necessary protection for presidential office and accountability under the law.
Consequences:
For Donald Trump:
- The ruling does not partially favour Trump, as it does not grant him "blanket immunity" as many tout to discredit the supreme court's decision.
- His legal cases related to actions deemed unofficial may proceed.
- He could face prosecution for charges such as alleged election interference in Georgia or handling classified documents if they were classified as unofficial actions inherent to his office. But Monday's Supreme Court ruling could give the defence reason to reconsider the question of immunity from these cases, which could be further delayed or even dismissed.
For future presidents:
- More clarity on the limits of their legal immunity.
- Potential increased caution on personal actions while in office.
- Potential impact on presidential decision-making.
For the judiciary:
- Establishes an important precedent for future cases involving presidents.
- This may lead to increased litigation against former presidents for unofficial actions.
For American democracy:
- It reinforces the principle that no one is above the law. And not as liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor refuted in her dissent: "The president is now a king above the law"
- It can strengthen public confidence in the system of checks and balances.
Conclusion: This Supreme Court ruling marks an important milestone in US jurisprudence on presidential accountability. While it offers some protection to presidents in the exercise of their official duties, it also sets clear limits on their immunity. For Donald Trump, this means that he will either face the legal consequences of his actions that are deemed unofficial or be cleared of the vast majority of the charges against him if the actions are deemed official, which could have significant implications for or against the ongoing and pending cases against him.
The Supreme Court ruled that a president is entitled to a pre-trial hearing on immunity that can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court before the trial begins.
The Supreme Court ruled that a president is entitled to a pre-trial hearing on immunity that can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court before the trial begins.
Does This Mean That Any Trial Against Trump Will Take Place After the Election on 5 November 2024?
Temporary implications:
- The pre-trial hearing process and possible appeals all the way to the Supreme Court could take several months.
- Since we are in mid-2024, it is highly likely that this process will extend beyond the 5 November 2024 election.
Probability of post-election trials:
- It is highly likely that any trial against Trump will take place after the 2024 election.
- The time needed for immunity hearings, appeals and trial preparation will likely push court proceedings into 2025.
Political implications:
- This could benefit Trump in his presidential campaign, as he won't face trials on the campaign trail.
- It gives reason for arguments that the charges are politically motivated without having to defend himself in court before the election.
Legal challenges:
- Prosecutors may try to speed up prosecutions, but the Supreme Court ruling gives Trump and his lawyers tools to delay trials.
- There is the possibility of additional motions and counterclaims that could further prolong the process.
Post-election scenarios:
- If Trump wins the election, he will be able to argue presidential immunity again for the new term.
- If he loses, lawsuits would likely proceed in 2025, but without the pressure of the election calendar.
Impact on the judicial system:
- This precedent could affect future cases against presidents and former presidents, potentially delaying similar prosecutions.
In short, the Supreme Court's ruling on the right to a pre-trial immunity hearing and subsequent appeals makes it highly likely that any trial against Trump will take place after the November 2024 elections. This has significant implications for both the legal process and the political landscape in the United States.
Reactions and Criticisms of the Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court's ruling has generated a great deal of political and legal reaction and criticism. Various sectors have expressed their concerns and opinions about the impact of this decision on the judicial system and the figure of former President Trump. Both supporters and critics of Trump have expressed their position on this ruling, reflecting the importance and controversy surrounding this issue since the Biden-Obama regime unleashed an offensive to prevent Trump's possible return to the presidency at all costs, so it does not take a genius to realise that the vast majority of the accusations and proceedings against the former president are clearly politically motivated and that many of the judges involved have demonstrated a strong political bias against Trump.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that presidents enjoy criminal immunity for official, but not unofficial, acts in a decision that is expected to delay the sentencing and trials of former President Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court's decision was split 6-3.
The Supreme Court decision was split, with a clear conservative majority led by Chief Justice Roberts and supported by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Justice Barrett, while joining the majority opinion in part, cast her own concurring vote.
Justice Barrett, while joining the majority opinion in part, cast her own concurring vote.
Justices Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan, on the other hand, formed a dissenting bloc, expressing their disagreement with the decision.
President Joe Biden was unsurprisingly harshly critical of the Supreme Court justices' decision:
President Joe Biden was also critical of the Supreme Court justices' decision.
"This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America," Biden said, adding that no one is above the law. With the Supreme Court's decision, he said, "that has fundamentally changed."
Former President Donald Trump hailed the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity as a major victory for the Constitution and democracy.
Trump posted on Truth Social: "GREAT VICTORY FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN."
Trump's historic decision today by the U.S. Congress is a great victory for our Constitution and democracy.
"Today's historic Supreme Court decision should put an end to the entire witch hunt by corrupt Joe Biden against me," he said.
"Today’s Historic Decision by the Supreme Court should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me, including the New York Hoaxes - The Manhattan SCAM cooked up by Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, Racist New York Attorney General Tish James’ shameless ATTACK on the amazing business that I have built, and the FAKE Bergdorf’s “case.” PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"
