#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.
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.
“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.
“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be #immune from #criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal #law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such #immunity.
…if the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our #democracy, I dissent."