SCOTUS: TRUMP IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR OFFICIAL ACTS

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
...
When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
...
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.

Trump absolutely immune for official acts, not absolutely immune for non-official acts.

Roberts joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh in full, Barrett in part. Sotomayor dissented joined by Sagan and Jackson. Jackson also dissenting.

Trump absolutely immune for his discussions with Justice Department. Remanded to examine whether discussions with Vice President Pence were an official or unofficial act.

[Sir Mohamed]

Already posted this in the megathread:

https://twitter.com/NewsWire_US/status/1807784135823421640

[Gass3268]

It’s time to drone then I guess, maybe the Supreme Court as well, all as official acts of course.

[Beet]

The Supreme Court has officially ruled that rule of law is dead. Oh what irony. The rule of man is back!

[John Dule]

Official immunity has literally always been the norm. They’re saying that before Trump can be charged, the court must determine that his actions didn’t constitute official acts (should be an easy determination to make).

[Green Line]

Stop with the dramatics.  What trump is being prosecuted for isn't an official act, it'll be fine.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law."

[Ferguson97]

Official immunity has literally always been the norm. They’re saying that before Trump can be charged, the court must determine that his actions didn’t constitute official acts (should be an easy determination to make).

Can that determination itself be appealed to SCOTUS?

[Ancestral Republican]

And there you have it.

Trump appointees vote to shield Trump from accountability.

And the last vestiges of credibility for this Court crumble into dust.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1807785884630008126?s=46

[Sir Mohamed]

Hear me out: The lower court(s) will rule January 6 wasn't an official act and therefore immunity doesn't apply. Subsequently Trump will appeal to that decision by arguing it was. This again goes up all the way to SCOTUS and takes at least another 9-12 months. This is a total farce.

Or, in other words: It has become very clear yet again, Trump gets away with everything unless he loses the election. However, SCOTUS may again rule it was an official act and Trump gets off even if he isn't prez.

[Beet]

Official immunity has literally always been the norm. They’re saying that before Trump can be charged, the court must determine that his actions didn’t constitute official acts (should be an easy determination to make).

Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson disagree with you.

In fact, the majority’s dividing line between “official” and
“unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct considered “unof-
ficial” almost to a nullity. It says that whenever the Presi-
dent acts in a way that is “ ‘not manifestly or palpably be-
yond [his] authority,’ ” he is taking official action. Ante, at
17 (quoting Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC
2023)). It then goes a step further: “In dividing official from
unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the Presi-
dent’s motives.” Ante, at 18. It is one thing to say that mo-
tive is irrelevant to questions regarding the scope of civil
liability, but it is quite another to make it irrelevant to
questions regarding criminal liability. Under that rule, any
use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt
purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt
motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under
the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of
Presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is des-
tined to be vanishingly small.

A majority including three justices appointed by a president who violated the law have held that the same president is immune! The fundamental principle that has held up the English world since 1643 has suffered a mortal blow. Call it dramatic if you wish, but It has happened. The rubicon has been crossed. This is worse the debate, even worse than Chevron.

[Middle-aged Europe]

For some reason, the Justices appointed by Trump voted in favour of this.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Am I correct in thinking the "Seal Team Six" hypothetical is now legal?  That is, within the scope of his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Biden could order the assassination of Trump or anyone else, and be immune from prosecution for it?

[Ancestral Republican]

Am I correct in thinking the "Seal Team Six" hypothetical is now legal?  That is, within the scope of his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Biden could order the assassination of Trump or anyone else, and be immune from prosecution for it?

You are correct.

And if you weren't, there is no earthly reason to imagine this court wouldn't side with him (as long as it's a Republican) anyway.
They have zero credibility.

[Gass3268]

Lol, we are so f’d

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1807788062207889689?s=46

[SteveRogers]

So having read the syllabus, it appears the Court announced a 3-tiered approach:
1. Absolute immunity for official acts involving the president’s core constitutional duties.
2. Presumptive immunity for official acts involving the outer perimeter of the President’s official duties. The prosecution can rebut that presumption of immunity if it can show that criminalizing an act would not interfere with the functioning of the executive branch.
3. NO immunity for unofficial acts.

Applying these standard to the pending indictment, SCOTUS holds:
1. Trump has absolute immunity and cannot be prosecuted for any of his conversations with the AG and justice department officials (including threatening to fire them if they didn’t investigate bogus claims of election fraud.
2. Trump is entitled to presumptive immunity for any of his dealings with the Vice President (i.e. attempting to influence Pence to stop the certification of the electoral vote). Remanded to the district court for proceedings on whether the government can meet their burden on overcoming presumption of immunity.
3. For everything else (Trump’s public speeches and tweets, communications with state officials, fraudulent elector schemes, etc.) remanded to the district court for proceedings to determine which acts qualify as official vs unofficial acts.

[SWE]

When you have an institution in which a third of its membership got there because Donald Trump had faith in their judgement, there is no way to argue that that is a credible or serious institution. There are two valid ways to look at modern SCOTUS: either it's a joke that should be treated as such, or we're the joke for pretending that the emperor's wearing clothes

[emailking]

Dump

Ruling in. Absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive Constitutional authority, whatever that means for this case.

It's this basically V

Anyway, I'm looking forward to getting the immunity decision tomorrow while simultaneously dreading it. I'm guessing 75% chance it's a kickback to Chutkan with the stay not lifted.

Hope she gets on this fast.

https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1807784659402793203

Court REMANDS to Chutkan to assess in the 1st instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the VP's oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Exec B ranch.

https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1807786672702329081

The famous Navy Seal case hypo, which everyone took as a given for no immunity, seems to be swept in.  While Trump not fully off the hook, the substantive reach of the opinion even broader then anticipated/feared

The court may not inquire into the President's motives to distinguish official conduct from unofficial conduct. omg

So this basically changes nothing about the trial except the timeline, right? Who decides if January 6th was an official act or unofficial act?

The lower court again, I would assume. However, even of Chatkun ruled that it wasn't and therefore immunity doesn't apply, couldn't Trump just again appeal to that decision all the way up to SCOTUS, claiming it was an official act? That would drag out the entire trial even further. The clear conclusion is that Trump can only be held accountable if he loses the election. Otherwise, he gets away with pretty much everything.

It's remanded back to Chutkan so she will have to rule on this question and she will need to make it bulletproof so that will take time. I'm not clear whether the 78 day clock restarts now while she is working on this. It's remanded back to her so I think it does, for now. But yes he will appeal and then I guess it will be up to the Circuit Court and/or SCOTUS to decide whether to take those cases and whether to put a stay on the trial while they're deciding. Hopefully this becomes clearer soon.

She could also just rule those charges are immune and we get going right away (after the promised 78 days, now early October) on the charges that aren't at issue for immunity.

[BlueSwan]

This insanity should be tested properly. President Biden could officially order the justice department to designate Trump an enemy of the country and then order the military to eliminate that threat. And maybe while they are at it also take out the conservative members of the supreme court. All very officially of course.

[BlueSwan]

For some reason, the Justices appointed by Trump voted in favour of this.

Clearly a coincidence!

[wbrocks67]

Love how they were like "official" vs "unofficial" but we're not gonna tell you what's "official" or "unofficial"

[DaleCooper]

This insanity should be tested properly. President Biden could officially order the justice department to designate Trump an enemy of the country and then order the military to eliminate that threat. And maybe while they are at it also take out the conservative members of the supreme court. All very officially of course.

They know he won't do that, which surely motivated their decision.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

No one believes in the court's legitimacy anyway. My biggest problem with Joe Biden has always been his respect for the supreme court

[emailking]

Supreme Court rules Trump has limited immunity in January 6 case, jeopardizing trial before election

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

In the most closely watched case before the Supreme Court this year, the ruling rejects a decision from a federal appeals court in February that found Trump enjoyed no immunity for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results.

The Supreme Court’s decision was 6-3, with the court’s liberals in dissent.

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

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,” Roberts also wrote.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I guess the end game is for the lower court to rule on whether Trump's conduct was an official act. If the lower court rules it is not an official act, it will be appealed back to the SC and they'll rule either 6-3 or 5-4 that is was an official act, and thus Trump will be let off with no consequences.

Ofc, none of this will be decided before the election, and once Trump is elected, he will shut down all of these trials.