Supreme Court: Trump Entitled To “At Least Presumptive Immunity From Prosecution For All His Official Acts”

Supreme Court: Trump Entitled To “At Least Presumptive Immunity From Prosecution For All His Official Acts”

The U.S. Supreme Court just released its Opinion on Trump’s presidential immunity:

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient….

It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. 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. 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, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.

Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with the usual suspects dissenting. ACB concurred in the majority in part.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT – VERY GOOD DAY FOR TRUMP

We have been covering whether and to what extent Trump enjoyed presidential immunity that would preclude the DC federal prosecution (and potentially the Georgia and Florida prosecutions) since last fall:

• Trump Seeks Dismissal Of DC Case Based On “Presidential Immunity”(October 5, 2023)
• DC Court Denies Trump’s Motion To Dismiss DOJ Criminal Case Based on Claimed ‘Absolute’ Presidential Immunity (December 1, 2023)
• Special Counsel Jack Smith Asks Supreme Court to Weigh In on Trump’s Claim of Presidential Immunity from Criminal Prosecution (December 13, 2023)
• Judge Pauses Trump’s Jan. 6 Case as Courts Above Her Decide if He has Immunity (December 13, 2023)
• Supreme Court Won’t Expedite Special Counsel’s Request to Review Trump’s Immunity Claims, Leaving it to Lower Courts for Now (December 22, 2023)
• Judge Delays Trump’s D.C. Trial as Courts Consider Presidential Immunity (February 2, 2024)
• Appeals Court Affirms the Denial of Trump’s Presidential Immunity Claim in D.C. Election Interference Case (February 6, 2024)
• Trump Asks Supreme Court to Stay Appeals Court Ruling Rejecting Immunity in D.C. Case (February 12, 2024)
• Supreme Court To Hear Trump DC Case Immunity Defense On Schedule Making Trial Before Election Unlikely (February 28, 2024)
• Trump SCOTUS Immunity Argument – Consensus Is Trump Likely To Get At Least A Partial Win (April 25, 2024)

SCOTUS accepted the case for review on the following question:

“Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

The SCOTUS Opinion pretty much came down as I predicted after the oral argument (link above):

“I think they will simply find in response to their question that there is presidential immunity for official acts while done in office and send it back down to the district court to opine on whether the charges in this case involve official acts or not.”

Some selective passages from the majority opinion which may be relevant to how this plays out.

As to charge of unlawfully colluding with DOJ officials, absolute immunity:

The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment ¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

As to the charge of unlawfully pressuring Pence, presumptive immunity:

Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. Ibid. Despite the Vice President’s expansive role of advising and assisting the President within the Executive Branch, the Vice President’s Article I responsibility of “presiding over the Senate” is “not an ‘executive branch’ function.” Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the President’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice President Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 2 (Aug. 28, 1974). With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. So the Government may argue that consideration of the President’s communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754; see supra, at 14.

At the same time, however, the President may frequently rely on the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate to advance the President’s agenda in Congress. When the Senate is closely divided, for instance, the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote may be crucial for confirming the President’s nominees and passing laws that align with the President’s policies. Applying a criminal prohibition to the President’s conversations discussing such matters with the Vice President—even though they concern his role as President of the Senate—may well hinder the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions.

It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether 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 on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

As to communications with persons – including state electors – outside the executive branch, it depends:

Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. And the parties’ brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. The concerns we noted at the outset—the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties—thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.

As to Trump’s tweets and speech and other conduct on January 6, it depends:

Whether the Tweets, that speech, and Trump’s other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. Knowing, for instance, what else was said contemporaneous to the excerpted communications, or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally, could be relevant to the classification of each communication. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.

From the Sotomayor Dissent, Trump now can call out Seal Team 6:

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court 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….

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, 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. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). 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. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. 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….

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.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT – VERY GOOD DAY FOR TRUMP

BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!

Donald Trump Truth Social 10:41 AM EST 07/01/24 pic.twitter.com/WzuatoTze1

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) July 1, 2024

REACTIONS FROM THE LEFT

Yep. I thought Trump would win, but not completely.

He won completely. https://t.co/srtv7ojcv8

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) July 1, 2024

The DOJ stuff was probably the most egregious abuse of his direct power as president and would have created an even worse crisis had it been successful https://t.co/WRKJKDKNct

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) July 1, 2024

Holy fuck this is bad. #SCOTUS https://t.co/QYbFj4PYve

— Annika Brockschmidt (@ardenthistorian) July 1, 2024

Lmao that would be funny if Joe Biden came out today and said in an official act he was now refusing to leave office … They can’t charge him … 🤣🤣🤣 #Scotus

— CJ G (@cjgproduxions) July 1, 2024

Can’t believe #SCOTUS just ruled Biden can officially take out Trump Tower in a drone strike.

— Jeffrey Sconce (@JeffreySconce) July 1, 2024

The Supreme Court just gave Biden unequivocal immunity to order the military to take action against Trump.

Today. Right now.

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) July 1, 2024

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.