Trump immune for 'offical' acts only
Supreme court ruling makes trial before November [2024] election unlikely
By: Maureen Groppe
and Bart Jansen
USA Today
WASHINGTON - In landmark decision the Supreme Court ruled Monday [07/01/2024] that former President Donald Trump can be tired for any of the efforts to overturn his 2020 loss that were not taken in his official capacity.
.....
Deciding for the first time whether presidents are immune from criminal prosecution, divided Supreme Court said, 6-3, that "official" acts taken by a president are protected but not steps taken as a candidate.
..... The case was a crucial test for the court and its six conservative justices, half of whom were appointed by Trump.
..... Trump is the first president - former or current - to be criminally charged. In the case in question, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on four charges connected to allegations he tried to steal the 2020 election.
..... The former president's team argued that a president can't be prosecuted for actions he took in his official capacity during his administration. Otherwise, Trump's attorneys argued, the threat of future indictment would destroy the strength and authority of presidents by subjecting them to politically motivated prosecutions.
..... Smith argued presidents, can still function effectively without criminal immunity, a protection he said neither the framers of the Constitution nor any other president contemplated.
..... And even if a former president has some immunity, Smith said, trying to thwart the peaceful transfer of power is a perfect example of conduct that should not be protected.
.... Chief Justice John Roberts said presidents are not above the law. "But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional power, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts," he wrote.
.....
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justice Elemna Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the majority's decision "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."
.....
Sotomayor said the court gave Trump "all the immunity he asked for and more" and closed, "with fear for our democracy, I dissent."
.....
Roberts criticized the dissenters for doomsaying rather than acknowledging the lower courts will determine whether Trump's conduct is vulnerable to criminal charges.
Reaction and timing
..... Trump, on Truth Social called the decision a "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY."
..... David Becker, a former senior trail attorney in the voting section of the Justice Department's civil rights division, called the high court's decision "deeply disturbing."
..... Presidents, he said, would have immunity form interactions with an attorney general, even if that means pressuring the AG to charge election results or ordering SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent.
.....
"The way I read this opinion, is it could be a road map for (presidents) seeking to stay in power," Becker said.
..... Robert Minitz, an expert on white-collar criminal defense at McCarty & English, said the decision cerated more heat than light. "Rather than finding either clear immunity or no immunity for alleged criminal conduct, this new standard will unquestionably lead to protracted hearings and further appeals as the lower courts have to now grapple with the question of which allegations in the indictment constitute official acts," Mintz said.
..... The time it took the high court to issue its opinion likely means it is too late for a trail to be completed before Election Day. [2024] If Trump wins in November, [2024] he could order the Justice Department to dismiss any federal cases against him.
..... During hours of arguments in April, [2024] several conservative justices signaled they were more focused on how a ruling would affect future presidents than - as Justice Brett Kavanaugh put it - the "here and now."
..... The Supreme Court has decided other high-profile cases much faster than Trump's immunity claim. It allowed Trump's name to remain on the Colorado primary ballot lees than a month after hearing arguments about removing it because of his role in the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021.
Social media case
..... In another high-profile case, the Supreme Court on Monday [07/01/2024] directed lower courts to reevaluate Republican-backed laws in Texas and Florida limiting the ability of powerful social media companies to moderate content.
..... The justices said the lower courts didn't property evaluate whether the laws violate the First Amendment.
..... The laws were passed in 2021 in response to concerns that conservative viewpoints were being suppressed on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. They would have several limited the ability of social media companies to kick users off their platforms or remove individual posts for violating a platform's rules.
.....
Florida's law had been blocked by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found no constitutional issues with Texas' law but kept it on hold during the appeal.
..... Trade groups representing the nation's social media companies said governments can't tell the platforms what to post - just as a state can't tell a newspaper what to publish.
..... Contact moderation is necessary, the companies contend, to prevent the sites from become mere "gobbledygook" and to avoid extremism, harassment and hate speech.
.....
The states, however, argued sites like Facebook are less like a newspaper and more like a telephone line which transmits content generated by customers, instead of crating it themselves. And because of the huge impact social media giants have over public debate, information needs to flow freely Online, they said.
..... Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, said the court rejected the broadest arguments by both sides.
..... "The social media companies asked for a sweeping ruling that would have placed their business models beyond the reach of regulation. The states asked for a ruling that would have given them immense power to manipulate and control public discourse Online," Jaffer said.
..... "The Court was entirely right to reject these requests, both of which would have done real harm to our democracy."