CW #
⚠️ : #
USPolitics #
USPol #
SCOTUS #
TrumpMy go-to source for well-written articles about US court cases is
Courthouse News Service:
Supreme Court rules for broad presidential immunity in Donald Trump election subversion caseThe court describes, in vague terms, "three buckets of immunity":
...The 6-3 ruling gave former presidents absolute immunity for duties within their core powers and some immunity for other official actions. But the court did not decide how their ruling applied to Trump, noting that the current posture of the case did not require the justices to weigh in on where the charges in the D.C. case fell in or outside of the immunity bubble.
“Because we need not decide that question today, we do not decide it,” Roberts wrote. ...
The court’s ruling sends the case back to [U.S. District Judge Tanya] Chutkan to decide which, if any, of Trump’s charges are outside of immunity granted by official presidential acts.
The president’s core constitutional powers include commanding the military, granting pardons, overseeing foreign relations, managing immigration and appointing judges. Congress and the courts, Roberts wrote, cannot act or examine the president’s actions in this realm.
Roberts said that absolute immunity gets downgraded when the president’s actions fall outside those core areas.
“The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress,” Roberts wrote. ...
...Roberts said presidents should still have presumptive immunity for duties outside of their core responsibilities.
“Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution,” Roberts wrote.
The court’s ambivalence did not extend to unofficial acts, which the court said had no immunity. These would include actions taken completely outside of the executive office, such as before the president took office. ...
...the court said any conduct covered by presidential immunity cannot be presented to a jury as evidence. Smith’s team suggested a jury could consider evidence concerning official acts to prove that Trump knew his election fraud claims were false. The Supreme Court threw out this possibility.
“That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized,” Roberts wrote. “It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly — invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.” ...