#SCOTUS is supposed to rule this morning on #Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election.
The decision will determine whether & how special counsel #JackSmith’s case against Trump can proceed — although it’s unlikely a trial would happen before #Election Day. But the ruling could also set an important #precedent for how to prosecute presidents for their actions in office.
Some justices suggested during oral arguments that they were taking a sweeping approach to the case. “We are writing a rule for the ages,” Justice #Gorsuch said. #Trump is facing 4 charges stemming from his attempts to overturn #Biden’s victory in the #2020election, the most serious of which carries a max of 20 yrs in #prison. The case has been on hold while #SCOTUSconsiders Trump’s argument that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts they take while in office.
#SCOTUS seems unlikely to side either w/ #Trump or #DOJ, which argued that presidents are not #immune from prosecution. (A 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals DC Circuit ruled unanimously in Feb in favor of the #Justice Dept.)
Instead, the justices will likely split the difference.
They could rule that Trump can be prosecuted for some charges & not others — or they could outline a test to determine what conduct Trump & other former presidents can be prosecuted for & what they can’t.
If #SCOTUS devises a test: Do they apply it themselves? (Doubtful) Or do they return the case to District Court Judge Tanya #Chutkan & instruct her to apply it? (More likely) If the justices apply the test themselves & allow some of the charges against #Trump to stand, the case could proceed. But if the court asks Chutkan to apply a test & she finds Trump is not #immune from prosecution, then Trump would undoubtedly appeal which would further delay a trial.
#JackSmith might also decide to revise the charges against #Trump to move the case forward — a possibility that #SCOTUS Justice #AmyConeyBarrett raised during oral argument.
If the court rules that Trump cannot be prosecuted for official conduct as president but his private conduct is fair game, Barrett asked, “Is another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private conduct & drop the official conduct?”
Michael Waldman, a fmr speechwriter in Pres Bill Clinton’s WH who is president & chief exec of the @BrennanCenter for #Justice, said the timing of the ruling might be more important than the decision.
“The court has already given #Trump what he craved, which is de facto #immunity before the #election,” Waldman said. By deciding the case on the final day of the term, the court has made it “very, very, very, very, very unlikely” it will go to trial before Election Day.
If the trial doesn’t start by Election Day, the fate of Smith’s case might depend on the election’s outcome. #Trump could tell his AG to drop the case if he wins. Waldman is watching whether #SCOTUS rules unanimously — as it did in 1974 when it ordered President Richard #Nixon to hand over the #Watergate tapes, another important case on the limits of presidential #power — or the ruling is divided along ideological lines.
“The #credibility of the court is on the line, & they risk looking very #partisan, depending on not just what they do but how they do it,” Waldman said.
“What made the Court’s 1974 ruling in the #Nixon …case so profound was not its reasoning, but the fact that it was an 8-0 repudiation of Nixon by a Chief Justice he had appointed. I certainly hope that the Court finds a way to present a united front in whatever it decides in #Trump’s case. But…I’m not optimistic,” Vladeck wrote.
there are two boxes of opinions this morning holding the final three decisions of the term.
The first of three final rulings to be released is about the statute of limitations to challenge fees that retailers can be charged by banks for debit card transactions. The case is Corner Post v. Federal Reserve.
The court has issued its ruling in #NetChoice v. #Paxton & #Moody V. NetChoice, blocking both the Florida and Texas social media laws while litigation continues in lower courts. Here is the ruling.
“entitled to presumptive immunity for official acts”
“A former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his ‘conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,’ the ruling says. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
The #SCOTUS has remanded the case to the Federal District Court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya #Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which Trump has been charged — which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity & which are official ones he undertook as president.
“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, & he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his ofcl acts.”
This is the #Scotus headline at talkingpointsmemo.com. I don't know why it isn't the headline at the NY Times and the Washington Post and everywhere else. It’s certainly accurate. The Supreme Court is granting itself powers not anticipated by the framers, who thought Congress and the executive branch had a role to play.
Third and not last, Roberts has the 6-3 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, affirming the Fifth Circuit on the Seventh Amendment jury trial issue. The court does not reach the other issues. Sotomayor has the liberals' dissent. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf
Sotomayor is reading from her dissent in Jarkesy. #SCOTUS