The Supreme Court just adjourned until the first Monday in October… but not before it made a bombshell announcement about former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from prosecution for the events of Jan. 6.
The court has extended the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss, all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election.
In a 6-3 ruling, the justices said former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official acts but do not have immunity for unofficial acts. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether core aspects of the indictment are unofficial versus official, and therefore potentially shielded from prosecution.
In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts chided the lower courts for their quick decisions on the consequential case and for not analyzing whether Trump’s conduct detailed in the indictment was official or unofficial.
“Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, and the very significant constitutional questions that it raises, the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis,” Roberts wrote.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in her ruling in December said the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
Washington’s federal appeals court similarly rejected Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity two months later. In that ruling, the appeals court said any immunity that may have protected Trump while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a separate concurrence saying that he believed Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was illegitimate and that the case therefore violates “our constitutional structure.”
No other justice signed onto that opinion, but the question took center stage in recent arguments in a separate case against Trump charging him in Florida with illegally hoarding classified documents.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was dramatic in her dissent to the ruling.
“Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.”
She paused at certain moments and at others strongly pronounced each word. In one jab at the conservative majority, Sotomayor cited some of the founding fathers and said, “Interesting, history matters, right?”
Then she looked at the courtroom audience and concluded, “Except here.”
In another dramatic rebuke, Sotomayor said, “Ironic, isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them.”
At times, Sotomayor shook her head as she criticized the majority’s conclusions as “utterly indefensible” and later as elevating the president to “a king above the law.”
The high court’s conservative majority accused the liberal justices who dissented of “fear-mongering” and striking a “tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”
The majority said the dissenters in the immunity case “overlook” the concern that presidents will be restrained from “boldly and fearlessly” carrying out their official duties out of fear that they could be subject to prosecution.
The majority opinion noted that presidents are routinely criticized for not sufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law. “An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration” could allege the previous president broke the law, it said.
“Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid.”
The Biden campaign began fundraising off the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling within a few hours of the decision.
A new fundraising email called on Biden supporters to “hold Trump accountable” because “our democracy and ALL of our fundamental rights hang in the balance.”