The Supreme Court has concluded that the president of the United States is above the law – at least sometimes.
Yesterday, the court issued a decision in Trump v. United StatesThe case was about whether prosecutors could bring charges against Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election or whether he was immune from prosecution because he was president at the time. But the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t just about Trump.
The court ruled that presidents are presumptively protected from prosecution for official acts. That includes policy changes, military decisions and discussions with other administration officials. It does not include, for example, private acts performed exclusively as a political candidate.
On specific legal questions about Trump’s role in election interference and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the Supreme Court has been less clear. It has largely left it to federal judges to decide which of Trump’s actions qualify as official or private acts. “Ultimately, this analysis is best left to lower courts at first instance,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.Read highlights of the Court’s opinions.)
In practice, the move will delay Trump’s election interference trial, reducing the chances that it will take place before Election Day in November, if it does take place.
Today’s newsletter will explain what this new precedent means for Trump and how it could reshape presidential power for years to come.
About the accusations against Trump
Since prosecutors filed charges against Trump, he has followed a strategy of delay, delay, delayIf he wins the election before the final criminal cases against him are concluded, he could use the presidency to prevent the trials from continuing.
The Supreme Court’s decision helps Trump achieve that goal. First, the judge in the federal election interference case, Tanya Chutkan, will have to hold hearings and decide which parts of the case violate the Supreme Court’s new immunity standard. Then, each side could appeal Chutkan’s rulings. The appeals could once again go all the way to the Supreme Court, which would cause months of additional delay.
The Supreme Court’s decision makes it almost certain that Trump “will not be tried for seeking to overturn the last election until voters decide whether to return him to the White House in the next election.” wrote my colleague Alan Feuercovering the case. It does, however, give prosecutors a chance to publicly showcase their evidence against Trump as they present it to the court for inclusion in the trial.
The ruling could also apply to charges against Trump in Georgia and New York. Trump already filed a motion yesterday to quash the conviction against him in New York, citing the Supreme Court.
Of presidential power
When the Supreme Court first heard the case in April, Justice Neil Gorsuch said, “We are writing a rule for eternity.” The court would decide what legal protections would apply not just to Trump, but to future presidents as well.
The majority opinion, written by Roberts, does just that. It says presidents should be able to make tough decisions without fear of criminal punishment for their choices. “A president inclined to pursue one course of action based on the public interest may instead pursue another, fearing criminal sanctions when he leaves office,” Roberts wrote.
Some lawyers believe the decision goes too far. in the expansion of presidential power. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the decision would allow presidents to do things that until now might have seemed clearly outside the law. “Ordering Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immunized,” she wrote. “Organizing a military coup to hold on to power? Immunized. Accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immunized. Immunized, immune, immune.”
The decision doesn’t shield presidents from all consequences. They still have to win elections, and Congress can still impeach them. Future decisions could set clearer boundaries around presidential immunity. But for now, the Supreme Court has extended sweeping legal protections to presidents that don’t apply to anyone else in the country.
More information on the ground
-
Asset celebrated the decision“A GREAT VICTORY FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY,” he posted on his social media platform, Truth Social. “PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
-
“Any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law,“President Biden said in a speech from the White House that the decision set a “dangerous precedent.”
-
Republicans celebrated the decisionAs Democrats worry about the future of American democracy, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pledged to file impeachments against the judges.
-
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito participated in the decisionrejecting calls by ethics experts for their recusal because of their wives’ partisan activities.
-
In a concurring opinion, Thomas suggested that Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump, was illegally appointed.
-
Furthermore, in two cases concerning the regulation of social media companies, the court bypassed a final decision and sent them back to the lower courts.
-
The court also granted the companies more time to challenge government regulationsa new blow to the authority of federal agencies.
THE LAST NEWS
2024 Elections
The Rubik’s Cube celebrates its 50th anniversary: Mathematicians and hobbyists have spent half a century happily exploring the various facets of the puzzle. 43 billion billion permutations.
Ask Vanessa: “How can I stay cool and Look chic in the heat?”
Education: Babies, toddlers and preschoolers affected by the pandemic are now school-aged. Many are in difficulty.
Lives lived: Critics have often compared Albanian novelist Ismail Kadare to Kafka and Orwell. His works subversively attacked the brutal dictatorship of Enver Hoxha, circumventing censorship through allegory, satire and myth. But Kadare also wrote a novel that portrayed the dictator favorably and that he later claimed he wrote to curry favor with the dictator. died at 88 years old.
SPORTS
Copa America: The United States men’s national team was eliminated from the competition after a loss to Uruguay. The work of coach Gregg Berhalter could be in danger.
The culture wars have begun to descend on Britain’s stately homes. The National Trust, the charity that runs many of them, has changed the signs at dozens of properties to explain the sites’ links to slavery and exploitation. Right-wing columnists and academics have been furious, declaring the National Trust to be woke and suggesting it presents an “anti-British” view of history. Learn more about the fight.
Learn more about culture
-
The global TV show ordering market is starting to recover after a major slowdown. Netflix and Amazon are mainly the hump driving in new orders.
-
Young people on TikTok are dancing to a catchy song called “Friendly Father.” a piece of North Korean propaganda about Kim Jong-un, the Wall Street Journal reports.
-
Young Thug’s long-delayed gang conspiracy trial has been interrupted indefinitely to determine whether the judge, who met with an uncooperative witness, should recuse himself.
