For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!
For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.
Monday, 1 July 2024:
Supreme court Says Trump Has Some Immunity in Election Case. The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and those of a private citizen. In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Monday, 1 July 2024: “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the last election, a blockbuster decision in the heat of the 2024 campaign that vastly expanded presidential power. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Its immediate practical effect will be to further complicate the case against Mr. Trump, with the chances that it will go before a jury ahead of the election now vanishingly remote and the charges against him, at a minimum, narrowed. The decision amounted to a powerful statement by the court’s conservative majority that presidents should be insulated from the potential that actions they take in carrying out their official duties could later be used by political enemies to charge them with crimes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had at least presumptive immunity for his official acts. He added that the trial judge must undertake an intensive factual review to separate official and unofficial conduct and to assess whether prosecutors can overcome the presumption protecting Mr. Trump for his official conduct…. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision was gravely misguided. In a rare move and sign of deep disagreement, she summarized her dissent from the bench, making off-the-cuff remarks that underscored her frustration. ‘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.’ In her own dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that ‘the court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.’… In dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that ‘the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,’ she wrote, adding: ‘The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.’ She gave examples: ‘Orders the Navy’s SEAL team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.’… In her written dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Jackson and Elena Kagan, said: ‘The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.’ Justice Sotomayor ended her opinion in unusual fashion. ‘With fear for our democracy,’ she wrote, ‘I dissent.’” See also, Highlights of the Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity. Key excerpts from the decision reveal how the court’s conservative majority views the power of the nation’s leader. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Monday, 1 July 2024. See also, Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Escalates Long Rise of Presidential Power. Beyond Donald J. Trump, the decision adds to the seemingly one-way ratchet of executive authority. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Monday, 1 July 2024: “The Supreme Court’s decision to bestow presidents with immunity from prosecution over official actions is an extraordinary expansion of executive power that will reverberate long after Donald J. Trump is gone. Beyond its immediate implications for the election subversion case against Mr. Trump and the prospect that he may feel less constrained by law if he returns to power, the ruling also adds to the nearly relentless rise of presidential power since the mid-20th century. It had seemed like a constitutional truism in recent years when more than one lower-court opinion addressing novel legal issues raised by Mr. Trump’s norm-breaking behavior observed that presidents are not kings. But suddenly, they do enjoy a kind of monarchical prerogative. ‘The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably,’ Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in an outraged dissent joined by the court’s other two liberals. ‘In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.’… The structure of accountability — or lack thereof — for official presidential criminality that the country lives under now, as laid down by Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion, has three categories. The first is unofficial crimes that happen to be committed by someone who is president but fall entirely outside the outer perimeter of presidential responsibilities. In theory, a former president can still be prosecuted for those types of crimes. At the other end of the spectrum are crimes that a president commits as part of his ‘core’ constitutional powers and responsibilities. Congress cannot intrude on how a president exercises those powers through criminal law, the majority said. So presidents may freely abuse those powers with absolute immunity from later prosecution. At a minimum, this category clearly includes those listed in the Constitution, like granting pardons or vetoing legislation. But the majority opinion said this category also extends to Mr. Trump’s attempt to get Justice Department officials to gin up inquiries into sham claims of voter fraud. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a president has ‘exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials.’ By that measure, he said, the president ‘may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his attorney general and other Justice Department officials’ under the constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ This line was particularly notable because since Watergate, there has been a norm of Justice Department investigative independence from White House control. But Mr. Trump already eroded that norm under his administration and has openly vowed, should he return to power, that he would use the Justice Department to exact retribution upon his enemies. Finally, the majority opinion outlined a third, more ambiguous category. This one encompasses official actions a president takes that are not core executive powers, so Congress shares overlapping authority over them and, in theory, criminal laws could apply to them. A president ‘presumptively’ has immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that fall in this category, too, the majority opinion said, but that shield might be overcome if prosecutors ‘can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.’ In her dissent, however, Justice Sotomayor portrayed that purported distinction as farcical. In practice, she said, it will be essentially impossible for prosecutors to show that there is ‘no’ danger of such intrusion.” See also, Supreme Court justices give presidents immunity for official acts, further delaying Trump’s trial. The justices said unofficial acts have no immunity, sending Donald Trump’s January 6 case back to the D.C. judge to decide which alleged acts are official. The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow and Devlin Barrett, Monday, 1 July 2024: Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts as president but can face trial for private conduct, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday, declaring a broad new definition of White House power that may stand for generations and will further delay Trump’s election interference case in D.C. The 6-3 decision along ideological lines makes it highly unlikely that the 45th president will go to trial on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election before voters cast ballots in this year’s presidential contest, in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee. Due to court procedures and the particular way in which the decision was rendered, the lower court will probably not be able to resume work on the case for 32 days; when and if the trial does proceed, it may be with a significantly whittled-down set of evidence. The high court specifically barred prosecutors from using one swath of evidence in any such trial — Trump’s conversations with Justice Department officials after Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. The majority of the court also signaled that other significant parts of the prosecution case could be tossed out. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a president ‘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.'” See also, Read the full text of Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s immunity. Former presidents are immune from prosecution for their official actions taken while in the White House, but don’t have immunity for unofficial acts, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. The Washington Post, Washington Post Staff, Monday, 1 July 2024. See also, 4 takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Trump immunity decision. The ruling is a win for Trump for a few reasons and is likely to reverberate in the 2024 campaign and beyond. Here’s what it means. The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Monday, 1 July 2024. “The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former president Donald Trump and other presidents enjoy a significant degree of immunity for actions taken as president, a decision that could reverberate not just in Trump’s criminal cases but also for future presidents. The court split 6-3 along ideological lines in finding that a president is a) absolutely immune for actions taken while exercising his “core constitutional powers” and b) entitled to the presumption of immunity for all official acts.” See also, Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial, Associated Press, Mark Sherman, Monday, 1 July 2024: “The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election. In a historic 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority, including the three justices appointed by Trump, narrowed the case against him and returned it to the trial court to determine what is left of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment. Trump celebrated a ‘BIG WIN’ on X. President Joe Biden said the justices set ‘a dangerous precedent (that) undermines the rule of this nation.'” See also, Trump is immune from prosecution for some acts in federal election case. The opinion leaves much unresolved, sending the case back to trial court for further proceedings. Politico, Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney, Monday, 1 July 2024: “Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution for some actions he took as president while fighting to subvert the 2020 election, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, further complicating efforts to put Trump on trial in Washington on criminal charges that he engaged in fraud to try to cling to power. The largely 6-3 decision, which divided the court along ideological lines, immediately knocked out some of the central allegations that special counsel Jack Smith leveled against Trump, including claims that he attempted to weaponize his Justice Department to concoct or amplify false claims of voter fraud. However, the opinion also leaves much unresolved, sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. There, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan must now sift through the allegations to separate Trump’s official acts — those he took in his capacity as president — from private ones, when he was acting as a presidential candidate. That process could further stall the case by months and is likely to push any trial past Election Day.”
Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Further Slows Trump Election Case but Opens Door to Airing of Evidence. The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to hold hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive–a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Monday, 1 July 2024: “The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday about executive immunity makes it all but certain that former President Donald J. Trump will not stand trial on charges of seeking to overturn the last election before voters decide whether to send him back to the White House in the next one. But the ruling also opened the door for prosecutors to detail much of their evidence against Mr. Trump in front of a federal judge — and the public — at an expansive fact-finding hearing, perhaps before Election Day. It remains unclear when the hearing, which was ordered as part of the court’s decision, might take place or how long it would last. But it will address the big question that the justices kicked back to the trial court, which is how much of Mr. Trump’s indictment can survive the ruling that former presidents enjoy immunity for official actions they take in office. And it will be held in Federal District Court in Washington in front of the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, who was handling the case before it was frozen more than six months ago as a series of courts considered his immunity claims.”
The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents, The New York Times, The Editorial Board, Monday, 1 July 2024: “In a stunning finale to its term on Monday morning, the Supreme Court delivered a gift of inestimable worth to Donald Trump and all future presidents who intend to violate the law and their oaths to the Constitution. In a 6-to-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority said that official acts that are central to the presidency are given ‘absolute immunity’ from prosecution. Other acts, even those that reach to the outer edge of a president’s official duties, are ‘presumptively immune,’ the court said, making them much harder to be prosecuted. The immediate effect of the decision — one of the most consequential ever produced by the court on the subject of presidential powers and constitutional government — was to delay indefinitely the prosecution of Mr. Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The vote this fall will now almost certainly move forward with no legal accountability for that act. But the long-term danger to the Constitution and the American government is even more serious, particularly given the real possibility that Mr. Trump, whose recent criminal conviction in New York is only the latest demonstration of his contempt for legal boundaries, could be returned to office in just a few months. As of Monday, the bedrock principle that no one is above the law has been set aside. In the very week that the nation celebrates its founding, the court undermined the reason for the American Revolution by giving presidents what one dissenting justice called a ‘law-free zone’ in which to act, taking a step toward restoring the monarchy that the Declaration of Independence rejected. Presidents can still be impeached for their crimes in office, but it is hard to see how they can ever be prosecuted. They can take once-unimaginable actions, like encouraging an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, with no fear of later going to jail or being held legally accountable.” See also, Biden Warns That the Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump. The president, under scrutiny since his damaging debate appearance last week, did not stumble or falter during his brief remarks. The New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Monday, 1 July 2024: “President Biden warned on Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity meant that there were ‘virtually no limits on what the president can do’ and urged voters to prevent former President Donald J. Trump from returning to the White House freed from the constraints of the law. ‘The American people must decide if they want to entrust the president once again — the presidency — to Donald Trump,’ Mr. Biden said during brief remarks, ‘knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.'” See also, Biden denounces Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. Biden says the justices removed restraints on presidents, including Trump, and undermined US principles. The Washington Post, Matt Viser, Monday, 1 July 2024: “President Biden on Monday night issued a blistering attack on the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision earlier in the day declaring that Donald Trump was immune from prosecution for official acts he took during his presidency. In brief but forceful remarks that came in a late addition to his schedule, Biden said that the high court was setting a dangerous precedent that could fundamentally change the world’s most powerful office.’For all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do,’ Biden said, adding that he pledges ‘to respect the limits of the presidential powers.'” See also, After Supreme Court immunity ruling, Biden draws sharp contrast with Trump on obeying rule of law, The Associated Press, Colleen Long and Will Weissert, Tuesday, 1 July 2024: “President Joe Biden warned Monday that a Supreme Court ruling granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution would make an unchecked Republican Donald Trump “more emboldened to do whatever he wants” if he regains the White House in November’s election. Biden, under intense pressure after his disastrous debate performance against Trump last week, urged Americans to think carefully about their election decision and signaled he had no intention of dropping out of the race. Criticizing the decision by the court’s conservative majority — which all but guarantees Trump will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election over his actions during the violent riot on Jan. 6, 2021 — Biden said it now fell to the American people “to do what the courts should have been willing to do but will not. ‘The American people have to render judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior.’ Biden’s efforts to reset his campaign following the debate, which spooked donors and stirred up major Democratic anxiety, has been looking a lot like his past attempts to keep the focus squarely on Trump’s misdeeds and shortcomings. During his brief remarks Monday, he made no mention of last week’s debate or his performance, and did not take questions, delivering an unusually political message from the White House.”
Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, July 2024: