The Supreme Court says Trump is immune from core acts
Donald J. Trump’s Supreme Court Indictment and the Foundations of the Institution of Government, and Implications for the Rule of Law
The Supreme Court’s decision that Donald J. Trump is entitled to immunity will almost certainly delay the trial of him on charges of scheming to subvert the 2020 election.
That will entail significant delays, and the prospects for a trial before the election seem vanishingly remote. If Mr. Trump prevails at the polls, he could order the Justice Department to drop the charges.
“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” she wrote. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”
The opinion by Roberts undermined some parts of the charges against the former president.
Other parts of the indictment against Mr. Trump, the chief justice said, “requires a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.”
The federal district court rejected the attempt to bar Donald Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the case of the pro-Trump mob
She gave examples: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. A coup is being held to hold onto power. The person is Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
The position of president does not give you a lifelong get out of jail free pass according to a judge in the Federal District Court in Washington.
The court unanimously rejected the attempt to bar Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states people who engage in insurrection are ineligible to hold office. The court, without discussing whether Mr. Trump was covered by the provision, ruled that states may not use it to exclude candidates for the presidency from the ballot.
On Friday, the court ruled that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. Two of the four charges against Mr. Trump are based on that law.
The case was scheduled for arguments a couple months after the Supreme Court agreed to hear it. The justices could have considered the case earlier than December, when Jack Smith tried to get the case reviewed, according to court critics.
The case moved at a slower pace. Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the prosecution, wrote in December that the public was very important that the claim of immunity be sorted out by the court. He said only the court can resolve them.
Many of the justices did not seem to bother with the details of the charges against Mr. Trump. The court should rule on presidential power in general, they said.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s decision, joined by his fellow conservatives. The three liberals who Dissented were Elena Kagan, Elena Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
He admonished the lower courts for giving decisions on a fast-track basis, saying “no court has thus far considered how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.” He said the lower courts “did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial.”
Even after Judge Chutkan separates the constitutional wheat from the chaff, Trump could seek further delays, as immunity questions are among the very few that may be appealed prior to trial.
