US Supreme Court grants Trump presidential immunity against prosecution
- In Reports
- 02:31 PM, Jul 02, 2024
- Myind Staff
On Monday, the US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump cannot face prosecution for actions taken within his constitutional powers as president. In a 6-3 decision led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justice overturned a lower court's ruling that denied Trump's immunity claim against federal criminal charges related to his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The majority opinion was supported by six conservative justices while three liberal justices dissented.
Repeating the scenario of the 2020 elections, Trump who is the Republican candidate is challenging the Democratic candidate, Biden in the upcoming elections, on November 5. The Supreme Court's prolonged handling of the case and its decision to before key questions regarding Trump's immunity to the trial judge make it unlikely for Trump to face the trial on the charges broad by Special Counsel Jack Smith before the election. Chief Justice Roberts mentioned, "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."
Chief Justice Roberts also stated that former presidents have "absolute" immunity concerning their "core constitutional powers." In addition, a former president is "presumptively immune" for actions falling within the "outer perimeter of his official responsibilities" challenging the prosecutors with a significant legal decision to overturn this presumption.
Responding to this at the White House, President Biden criticised the ruling as it sets "a dangerous precedent" by potentially allowing presidential powers to function without legal constraints. "This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America ... no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States," added Biden. The ruling could undermine certain aspects of the Special Counsel's case as U.S. District Judge Tanya Mull considers the extent of Trump's immunity.
In acknowledging Trump’s broad immunity, Chief Justice Roberts highlighted the requirement for a president to “execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly” without the threat of prosecution. However, Roberts clarified, “there is no immunity” for a president’s unofficial acts. Trump took his celebrations on social media proclaiming, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
At the age of 78, Trump stands as the first former U.S. president to face criminal prosecution and be convicted of a crime. The election subversion case is one of the four criminal cases he has faced.
The court made its decision on four types of conduct outlined in the indictment- his discussions with the U.S. Justice Department officials post-election; alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of Biden's victory; his supposed role in assembling fake pro-Trump electors for the certification process; and his actions related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. The outcome largely inclined towards favouring Trump but did not grant absolute immunity for all official acts, sought by his lawyers. Instead, the court ruled that actions within the president's "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" are protected, while those outside his exclusive powers are only "presumptively immune."
The court decided Trump was absolutely immune for his discussions with Justice Department officials and "presumptively immune" regarding his interactions with Pence. However, it sent that and the two other categories back to lower courts to decide on Trump's immunity. The ruling signifies the first event since the nation's founding in the 18th century that the Supreme Court has declared former presidents may be protected from criminal charges in any circumstance. The court's conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by Trump, determined on the final day of its term.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed strict dissent, explaining that the ruling effectively establishes a zone where the president is not subject to legal accountability. As per their dissent, any use of official powers by the president, under the majority's interpretation, would shield him from criminal prosecution.
Sotomayor elaborated this with hypothetical scenarios such as ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival or orchestrating a military coup to retain power, suggesting that such actions would now be considered immune from legal consequences. She emphasised that, in their view, this sets a precedent where the president operates above the law, putting him on a kingly pedestal in every exercise of official authority.
Comments