The sentencing of former President Trump in New York is being delayed
The High Court could not prosecute the prosecution of Donald Trump for lying about the investigation of his communications with Mike Pence, the vice president of the Senate, or the case of the nomination of a new president
The trial judge, the chief justice wrote, should determine whether prosecutors can overcome Mr. Trump’s presumed immunity for his communications with Vice President Mike Pence.
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.”
It was not the Supreme Court’s job to sift through evidence and separate protected conduct from the rest according to Chief Justice Roberts. “That analysis,” he wrote, “ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.”
The district court was asked to determine if a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the vice president’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as president of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion.
The High Court’s Decision on the 14th Amendment Immunity and Prosecuting the Pro-Trump ‘Mob’
She gave examples: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. A military coup to hold onto power is a possibility. Immune. Do you accept a bribe in order to get a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
The United States has one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get out of jail free’ pass, wrote Judge Chutkan in her opinion.
In March, the court unanimously rejected an attempt to bar Mr. Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which makes people who engage in insurrection ineligible to hold office. The court ruled that states can’t use the provision 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.
Monday’s Supreme Court decision came months after the court agreed to hear the case Feb. 28 and scheduled arguments for two months later. Court critics have noted that the justices could have considered the case as early as in December, when Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith unsuccessfully sought review of the same questions later put forward by Trump.
The immunity case has moved at a considerably slower pace. In December, in asking the justices to leapfrog the appeals court and hear the case immediately, Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the prosecution, wrote that “it is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this court.” He added that “only this court can definitively resolve them.”
At the argument, several of the conservative justices did not seem inclined to examine the details of the charges against Mr. Trump. Instead, they said, the court should issue a ruling that applies to presidential power generally.
The court’s decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“No court has thus far considered how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts,” he wrote, while chiding the lower courts for rendering “their decisions on a highly expedited basis.” 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.
The conviction was used by Trump as a way to raise money for his campaign. On the day after the guilty verdict, Trump’s campaign claimed to have raised millions of dollars. Trump and his legal team have also vowed to appeal the conviction, a process that could take years.
Trump’s sentencing was previously scheduled for July 11. GOP lawmakers are pressing the Manhattan District Attorney and the prosecutor to testify on Capitol Hill the next day, because of their critical of the trial. They previously said that they were open to give evidence after the sentencing.
The next day, prosecutors for the Manhattan district attorney said in a letter to New York Judge Juan Merchan that though they believe the arguments for a delay are without merit, they will not oppose the request.
The New York Times Investigates Donald Trump’s Earlier Phenomenology After the Trump-District Attorney’s Office Result
Donald Trump had a pre- sentencing interview with the New York City Department of Probation almost immediately after the verdict. The prosecutors for the Manhattan district attorney’s office and Trump’s legal teams each submitted sentencing recommendations last month. Those documents have not been released to the public — though he is not expected to face jail time.