As you may know, the US Supreme Court handed down an opinion today that’s been the target of enthusiastic and patriotic anticipation the world over. We could only guess upon which vitally important issues they’d be deciding, and of course, a great many of our readers have been looking for the Brunson case to be the thing that turns everything on its ear.
Well, that’s not what happened, but according to the SCOTUSblog, what did happen is as follows ~
In a 6-3 vote, the Court held that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.
Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.
There is no immunity, the court holds, for unofficial acts.
The core constitutional powers are things like appointing ambassadors and foreign governments.
The court explains that it does not need to decide in this case whether immunity for official acts is presumptive or absolute.
The court in Part III of its opinion indicates that in this case “no court has thus far considered how” to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.
Justice Roberts, reading from his opinion:
“Trump is … absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”
The court sends the case back to the district court for it to determine other things, such as “whether a prosecution involving Trump’s 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 on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
Roberts writes that “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized.”
“As for the dissents,” Roberts writes, “they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today–conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.”
Sotomayor is now reading from her dissent.
Roberts in his conclusion writes that “This case poses a question of lasting significance.” He notes that the immunity question has not come up before. “But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.”
Final substantive paragraph: “The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. 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.”
Justice Thomas writes a concurring opinion in which he questions the validity of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel. “If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone authorized to do so by the American people.”
Suzi: Ooh! This is a biggie here, and sets the stage for what is surely and most certainly to come…
From the Sotomayor dissent, which is joined by both Kagan and Jackson: Today’s ruling “reshapes the institution of the Presidency” and “makes a mockery of the principle . . . that no man is above the law.” The decision “gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.”
The court also notes in a footnote that the district court “if necessary” should consider whether two of the charges brought by Jack Smith against Trump in Washington, involving the obstruction of an official proceeding, can go forward in light of the court’s ruling last week in Fischer v. United States, narrowing the scope of that law.
scotusblog.com/2024/07/announcement-of-opinions-for-monday-july-1/