Will Trump win his case about absolute immunity when it is decided?

[Greedo punched first]

Will he win the case on the merits?

[Stranger in a strange land]

I have no idea, but to clarify, if Trump wins his case, it will then be completely legal for Joe Biden to funnel money to Hunter through Burisma and FTX, right?

[Ljube]

I have no idea, but to clarify, if Trump wins his case, it will then be completely legal for Joe Biden to funnel money to Hunter through Burisma and FTX, right?

It would be grounds for impeachment.
Then if convicted he could be indicted and tried in a court of law.

[Ljube]

Will he win the case on the merits?

There are several ways for Trump to win.
He can win on his total immunity claim, though I'm not sure how many votes there are for a total immunity opinion.
He can also win on a narrower interpretation of his case, where the majority could opine that Trump's actions were part of his official duties as President.
A third win would be for the SCOTUS to affirm that Trump was immune for official acts, but refer the case back to the district court for holding hearings to determine which of Trump's individual actions fall under his official duties as President. Each of these individual decisions would be subject to appeal up to the SCOTUS.

Judging by the ballot disqualification case, there was a majority for a sweeping decision, but there was a minority for a narrower decision and Justice Sotomayor was against the sweeping decision initially and started to write a dissent. Then when Kagan, Jackson and Barrett were unable to sway Roberts, they convinced Sotomayor to change her mind and amended her opinion slightly and changed it into a concurring opinion.

A similar dynamic could play out in the immunity case.

Sotomayor will be against immunity, while Thomas and Alito will be for total immunity.
I suspect that Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will be for a narrow immunity pertaining only to Trump's case.
Kagan and Jackson would probably also be for a narrow immunity, but rejecting it in Trump's case.
Then negotiations would start for the fifth vote. I suspect Thomas and Alito would hold firm, and if a joint decision is reached, it would probably only be limited to Trump's particular case and not mention the sweeping total immunity claim at all.

[Skill and Chance]

I have no idea, but to clarify, if Trump wins his case, it will then be completely legal for Joe Biden to funnel money to Hunter through Burisma and FTX, right?

It would be grounds for impeachment.
Then if convicted he could be indicted and tried in a court of law.

Not that familiar with this case, but I feel like that's a plausible "compromise" resolution: future federal prosecution of a former president for official acts while in office can proceed if and only if the Senate has already convicted and removed them from office for those specific acts.   

A milder version of this would be to just say that any federal prosecution of Trump for acts related to 1/6 = unconstitutional double jeopardy because the senate already acquitted him in the 2021 impeachment trial.   

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A milder version of this would be to just say that any federal prosecution of Trump for acts related to 1/6 = unconstitutional double jeopardy because the senate already acquitted him in the 2021 impeachment trial.   

This has been well established in law that impeachment is a political, not criminal action and thus double jeopardy doesn't apply just as civil cases don't either like in the case of O.J. Simpson. The only justice I can see taking that position is Gorsuch since he seems to have a pretty expansive and rigid view of double jeopardy.

[Skill and Chance]

A milder version of this would be to just say that any federal prosecution of Trump for acts related to 1/6 = unconstitutional double jeopardy because the senate already acquitted him in the 2021 impeachment trial.   

This has been well established in law that impeachment I a political, not criminal action and thus double jeopardy doesn't apply just as civil cases don't either like in the case of O.J. Simpson. The only justice I can see taking that position is Gorsuch since he seems to have a pretty expansive and rigid view if double jeopardy.

That's a shame, because such a ruling would create a culture of the House not impeaching unless they are nearly certain the senate will convict likely be the end of the frivolous impeachment talk in congress that seems to happen within a year of each new presidential election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A milder version of this would be to just say that any federal prosecution of Trump for acts related to 1/6 = unconstitutional double jeopardy because the senate already acquitted him in the 2021 impeachment trial.   

This has been well established in law that impeachment I a political, not criminal action and thus double jeopardy doesn't apply just as civil cases don't either like in the case of O.J. Simpson. The only justice I can see taking that position is Gorsuch since he seems to have a pretty expansive and rigid view if double jeopardy.

That's a shame, because such a ruling would create a culture of the House not impeaching unless they are nearly certain the senate will convict likely be the end of the frivolous impeachment talk in congress that seems to happen within a year of each new presidential election.

I mean look at the extension of that logic, does that mean that people actually impeached and removed can't be criminally prosecuted? Double jeopardy applies to guilty verdicts too. George Santos was effectively given the equivalent of a impeachment trial, does that mean he's now immune from criminal prosecution on what he was expelled over?

[Skill and Chance]

A milder version of this would be to just say that any federal prosecution of Trump for acts related to 1/6 = unconstitutional double jeopardy because the senate already acquitted him in the 2021 impeachment trial.   

This has been well established in law that impeachment I a political, not criminal action and thus double jeopardy doesn't apply just as civil cases don't either like in the case of O.J. Simpson. The only justice I can see taking that position is Gorsuch since he seems to have a pretty expansive and rigid view if double jeopardy.

That's a shame, because such a ruling would create a culture of the House not impeaching unless they are nearly certain the senate will convict likely be the end of the frivolous impeachment talk in congress that seems to happen within a year of each new presidential election.

I mean look at the extension of that logic, does that mean that people actually impeached and removed can't be criminally prosecuted? Double jeopardy applies to guilty verdicts too. George Santos was effectively given the equivalent of a impeachment trial, does that mean he's now immune from criminal prosecution on what he was expelled over?

That's a good point.  However, this language in the constitution seems like it could reasonably be read as a specific declaration that an impeachment conviction does not bar other federal prosecution, as a one-off exception to any general constitutional rules on double jeopardy?

"Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

Is this a crazy idea?

[brucejoel99]

A milder version of this would be to just say that any federal prosecution of Trump for acts related to 1/6 = unconstitutional double jeopardy because the senate already acquitted him in the 2021 impeachment trial.   

This has been well established in law that impeachment I a political, not criminal action and thus double jeopardy doesn't apply just as civil cases don't either like in the case of O.J. Simpson. The only justice I can see taking that position is Gorsuch since he seems to have a pretty expansive and rigid view if double jeopardy.

That's a shame, because such a ruling would create a culture of the House not impeaching unless they are nearly certain the senate will convict likely be the end of the frivolous impeachment talk in congress that seems to happen within a year of each new presidential election.

I mean look at the extension of that logic, does that mean that people actually impeached and removed can't be criminally prosecuted? Double jeopardy applies to guilty verdicts too. George Santos was effectively given the equivalent of a impeachment trial, does that mean he's now immune from criminal prosecution on what he was expelled over?

That's a good point.  However, this language in the constitution seems like it could reasonably be read as a specific declaration that an impeachment conviction does not bar other federal prosecution, as a one-off exception to any general constitutional rules on double jeopardy?

"Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

Is this a crazy idea?

It's not crazy to the extent that it's literally the very same hyperliteralist argument that Trump just made for immunity to both lower courts. Hence Judge Pan's now-infamous Seal Team 6 assassination order hypo at the D.C. Circuit's oral args. But SCOTUS limiting cert to the official-acts QP = 0 interest in going so far as absolute-immunity-even-in-unofficial-circumstances-unless-first-impeached-&-convicted.

[Skill and Chance]

A milder version of this would be to just say that any federal prosecution of Trump for acts related to 1/6 = unconstitutional double jeopardy because the senate already acquitted him in the 2021 impeachment trial.   

This has been well established in law that impeachment I a political, not criminal action and thus double jeopardy doesn't apply just as civil cases don't either like in the case of O.J. Simpson. The only justice I can see taking that position is Gorsuch since he seems to have a pretty expansive and rigid view if double jeopardy.

That's a shame, because such a ruling would create a culture of the House not impeaching unless they are nearly certain the senate will convict likely be the end of the frivolous impeachment talk in congress that seems to happen within a year of each new presidential election.

I mean look at the extension of that logic, does that mean that people actually impeached and removed can't be criminally prosecuted? Double jeopardy applies to guilty verdicts too. George Santos was effectively given the equivalent of a impeachment trial, does that mean he's now immune from criminal prosecution on what he was expelled over?

That's a good point.  However, this language in the constitution seems like it could reasonably be read as a specific declaration that an impeachment conviction does not bar other federal prosecution, as a one-off exception to any general constitutional rules on double jeopardy?

"Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

Is this a crazy idea?

It's not crazy to the extent that it's literally the very same hyperliteralist argument that Trump just made for immunity to both lower courts. Hence Judge Pan's now-infamous Seal Team 6 assassination order hypo at the D.C. Circuit's oral args. But SCOTUS limiting cert to the official-acts QP = 0 interest in going so far as absolute-immunity-even-in-unofficial-circumstances-unless-first-impeached-&-convicted.

I would think the double jeopardy would clearly only apply to cases where the president was already impeached and then acquitted.  Congress being just silent on the conduct and never conducting an impeachment shouldn't mean immunity from future prosecution.  If it were up too me, the acquittal at the impeachment trial that IMO should close the door, but specifically for prosecutions related to the activity the president was acquitted of wrongdoing in by the Senate.

I do really like the idea of disincentivizing impeachment for the sake of impeachment!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A milder version of this would be to just say that any federal prosecution of Trump for acts related to 1/6 = unconstitutional double jeopardy because the senate already acquitted him in the 2021 impeachment trial.   

This has been well established in law that impeachment I a political, not criminal action and thus double jeopardy doesn't apply just as civil cases don't either like in the case of O.J. Simpson. The only justice I can see taking that position is Gorsuch since he seems to have a pretty expansive and rigid view if double jeopardy.

That's a shame, because such a ruling would create a culture of the House not impeaching unless they are nearly certain the senate will convict likely be the end of the frivolous impeachment talk in congress that seems to happen within a year of each new presidential election.

I mean look at the extension of that logic, does that mean that people actually impeached and removed can't be criminally prosecuted? Double jeopardy applies to guilty verdicts too. George Santos was effectively given the equivalent of a impeachment trial, does that mean he's now immune from criminal prosecution on what he was expelled over?

That's a good point.  However, this language in the constitution seems like it could reasonably be read as a specific declaration that an impeachment conviction does not bar other federal prosecution, as a one-off exception to any general constitutional rules on double jeopardy?

"Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

Is this a crazy idea?

It's not crazy to the extent that it's literally the very same hyperliteralist argument that Trump just made for immunity to both lower courts. Hence Judge Pan's now-infamous Seal Team 6 assassination order hypo at the D.C. Circuit's oral args. But SCOTUS limiting cert to the official-acts QP = 0 interest in going so far as absolute-immunity-even-in-unofficial-circumstances-unless-first-impeached-&-convicted.

I would think the double jeopardy would clearly only apply to cases where the president was already impeached and then acquitted.  Congress being just silent on the conduct and never conducting an impeachment shouldn't mean immunity from future prosecution.  If it were up too me, the acquittal at the impeachment trial that IMO should close the door, but specifically for prosecutions related to the activity the president was acquitted of wrongdoing in by the Senate.

I do really like the idea of disincentivizing impeachment for the sake of impeachment!

The thing is "impeachment for the sake of impeachment" hardly ever happens. A point I saw noted is that almost 10% of all federal impeachments, at the time 2/21 happened to Trump.

Mayorkas now makes that 22 cases, and his case IS a blatant example of "impeachment for the sake of impeachment", but since there's zero chance of him even being charged with anything criminal much less convicted, this wouldn't be disincentivize it.

[Duke of York]

Will he win the case on the merits?

There are several ways for Trump to win.
He can win on his total immunity claim, though I'm not sure how many votes there are for a total immunity opinion.
He can also win on a narrower interpretation of his case, where the majority could opine that Trump's actions were part of his official duties as President.
A third win would be for the SCOTUS to affirm that Trump was immune for official acts, but refer the case back to the district court for holding hearings to determine which of Trump's individual actions fall under his official duties as President. Each of these individual decisions would be subject to appeal up to the SCOTUS.

Judging by the ballot disqualification case, there was a majority for a sweeping decision, but there was a minority for a narrower decision and Justice Sotomayor was against the sweeping decision initially and started to write a dissent. Then when Kagan, Jackson and Barrett were unable to sway Roberts, they convinced Sotomayor to change her mind and amended her opinion slightly and changed it into a concurring opinion.

A similar dynamic could play out in the immunity case.

Sotomayor will be against immunity, while Thomas and Alito will be for total immunity.
I suspect that Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will be for a narrow immunity pertaining only to Trump's case.
Kagan and Jackson would probably also be for a narrow immunity, but rejecting it in Trump's case.
Then negotiations would start for the fifth vote. I suspect Thomas and Alito would hold firm, and if a joint decision is reached, it would probably only be limited to Trump's particular case and not mention the sweeping total immunity claim at all.

So all his criminal cases will be thrown out by the court? How will this not completely and utterly destroy the credibility of the court?

[Dan the Roman]

Will he win the case on the merits?

There are several ways for Trump to win.
He can win on his total immunity claim, though I'm not sure how many votes there are for a total immunity opinion.
He can also win on a narrower interpretation of his case, where the majority could opine that Trump's actions were part of his official duties as President.
A third win would be for the SCOTUS to affirm that Trump was immune for official acts, but refer the case back to the district court for holding hearings to determine which of Trump's individual actions fall under his official duties as President. Each of these individual decisions would be subject to appeal up to the SCOTUS.

Judging by the ballot disqualification case, there was a majority for a sweeping decision, but there was a minority for a narrower decision and Justice Sotomayor was against the sweeping decision initially and started to write a dissent. Then when Kagan, Jackson and Barrett were unable to sway Roberts, they convinced Sotomayor to change her mind and amended her opinion slightly and changed it into a concurring opinion.

A similar dynamic could play out in the immunity case.

Sotomayor will be against immunity, while Thomas and Alito will be for total immunity.
I suspect that Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will be for a narrow immunity pertaining only to Trump's case.
Kagan and Jackson would probably also be for a narrow immunity, but rejecting it in Trump's case.
Then negotiations would start for the fifth vote. I suspect Thomas and Alito would hold firm, and if a joint decision is reached, it would probably only be limited to Trump's particular case and not mention the sweeping total immunity claim at all.

So all his criminal cases will be thrown out by the court? How will this not completely and utterly destroy the credibility of the court?

Not all, and perhaps not any specifically if it is sent back down to determine what official acts were.

That said, dismissing this whole thing as a one-time issue because "Trump is a criminal" leaves aside the implications of allowing the justice system to be weaponized to target people who are highly unpopular under creative interpretations. Prosecutors have been finding novel ways to invent crimes for decades, but it would be odd given the sentiments displayed during the Colorado case for there not to be some wider discomfort among even the liberals with the way civil cases are being used to wage financial warfare.

Going rogue here for a moment, I think the civil cases in NYS are actually a bigger problem going forward in terms of precedent than the DC case which has a clear link to official offenses. I also feel there is a much stronger case for civil immunity from private/state lawsuits than there is for immunity from federal prosecution.

The problem, of course, is that there isn't a proper vehicle for splitting that baby, but I wouldn't put it past Roberts to try and find a way to use a case about federal criminal immunity to set rules regarding civil proceedings.