{"id":2272209,"date":"2024-06-20T05:11:02","date_gmt":"2024-06-20T09:11:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-the-supreme-court-could-rule-on-trump-immunity\/"},"modified":"2024-06-20T05:16:43","modified_gmt":"2024-06-20T09:16:43","slug":"how-the-supreme-court-could-rule-on-trump-immunity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-the-supreme-court-could-rule-on-trump-immunity\/","title":{"rendered":"How the Supreme Court might decide on Trump&#8217;s immunity claim"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">20<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fhow-the-supreme-court-could-rule-on-trump-immunity%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2272209&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Supreme\u2064 Court is currently deliberating on a significant case that will determine whether former President \u200dDonald Trump can claim absolute immunity from his criminal\u200d indictments. The \u2064decision,\u200c expected soon, revolves around whether Trump&#8217;s actions during his \u2063presidency, specifically efforts \u200dallegedly aimed at subverting the 2020 election results,\u200b are protected under presidential\u2063 immunity. Lower\u200b courts have rejected Trump&#8217;s bid\u2063 to\u200b dismiss the charges based on immunity, but the Supreme\u2064 Court could\u2064 potentially\u200d set new standards for differentiating between a president&#8217;s official (&#8220;public&#8221;) \u200band\u2064 unofficial (&#8220;private&#8221;) actions.<\/p>\n<p>The justices appear divided, with some inclined to reject full immunity. Possible outcomes include sending\u2064 the case back to lower courts\u2063 to categorize \u2062Trump\u2019s actions during the January 6 events \u2062as\u200b either public \u2064or private, which could determine the scope of immunity. This \u2062ruling could significantly\u200d delay the trial, with political \u200bimplications as it may\u200d not conclude before the upcoming presidential election. The Supreme Beruff is considering if former presidents have immunity for actions considered official duties, reflecting on historical interpretations\u200b and legal precedents.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Supreme Court<\/a> is poised to decide the most high-stakes case of 2024, one that will determine whether former President <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/donald-trump\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Donald Trump<\/a> can claim absolute immunity from his criminal indictments.<\/p>\n<p>The justices are slated to hand down new decisions Thursday and Friday morning at 10 a.m. local time as they seek to whittle down the more than 20 outstanding cases yet to be decided this term \u2014meaning the answer to Trump\u2019s bid for presidential immunity could come any day now.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>Protesters demonstrate outside the Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments over whether\u00a0former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, April 25, 2024. (AP Photo\/J. Scott Applewhite)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>With the expectation that a decision on Trump\u2019s immunity question will come by the end of this week or next, the former president posted to his Truth Social account Sunday night with a final plea to the nine justices to find that he enjoys protection from prosecution.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWithout Presidential Immunity, a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America,\u201d Trump <a href=\"https:\/\/truthsocial.com\/@realDonaldTrump\/posts\/112629575215608429\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>wrote<\/a>. <\/p>\n<p>He added that future leaders \u201cwill always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation\u201d and that this could \u201cactually lead to extortion and blackmail of a President.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The matter before the justices in <em>Trump v. United States <\/em>stems from whether special counsel Jack Smith\u2019s indictment over Trump\u2019s alleged effort to subvert the 2020 election can be challenged by Trump\u2019s assertion that he cannot be prosecuted for actions he took while he was president.<\/p>\n<p>Trump contends that all former presidents should have immunity for things they did in office. His legal team has argued in part that Congress must secure a conviction during the impeachment process in order for any former president to face criminal charges for the same underlying conduct in federal court, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23-939\/300749\/20240215174027604_2024-02-15%20-%2023A745%20-%20Reply%20iso%20Application%20to%20S.%20Ct.%20for%20Stay%20of%20D.C.%20Circuit%20Mandate.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>according<\/a> to court records.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Smith has sought to appeal to the justices\u2019 senses of history and tradition, arguing in a high court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23-939\/306999\/20240408191803801_United%20States%20v.%20Trump%20final%20for%20filing.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>brief<\/a> that the framers \u201cnever endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/jack-smith-tells-supreme-court-to-keep-trump-charges-framers-never-endorsed-criminal-immunity\/\" title=\"Jack Smith urges Supreme Court to proceed with Trump charges, emphasizing that the Founding Fathers never supported criminal immunity\">faced potential criminal liability<\/a> for official acts.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Two lower courts have already ruled against Trump\u2019s broad effort to dismiss the case based on the theory of presidential immunity. However, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both appointed by Republican presidents, agreed together during oral arguments that the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit may have erred in their approach.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAs I read it, it says simply a former president can be prosecuted because he\u2019s being prosecuted,\u201d Roberts said in April. \u201cWhy shouldn\u2019t we either send it back to the court of appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that\u2019s not the law?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>During oral arguments, only a handful of justices appeared inclined to reject the idea of immunity outright, according to John Yoo, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley.<\/p>\n<p>Yoo suggested that the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority \u201crecognized the need to prevent future Presidents from criminalizing policy and constitutional differences with their predecessors.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of three Trump appointees on the bench, also <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/2979689\/gorsuch-supreme-court-trump-immunity-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>played a key role<\/a> in the debate by steering the nuanced conversation about the scope of presidential immunity.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/gorsuch-steers-supreme-court-in-trump-immunity-case-were-writing-a-rule-for-the-ages\/\" title=\"Gorsuch Guides Supreme Court in Trump Immunity Case: Crafting Timeless Rules\">target political opponents based<\/a> on accusations about their motives,\u201d Gorsuch said in April. \u201cWe\u2019re writing a rule for the ages.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Here are possible outcomes from the Supreme Court\u2019s decision on Trump\u2019s immunity bid:<\/p>\n<h2>Sending the case back to determine private versus public conduct<\/h2>\n<p>One of the possible outcomes that legal experts have gravitated toward is the idea that the Supreme Court may set a new precedent or standard that lower courts could use to decide, in criminal cases involving former presidents, what\u2019s official or \u201cpublic\u201d conduct and what is unofficial or \u201cprivate\u201d conduct.<\/p>\n<p>Yoo said the justices \u201cmay punt the question back to the lower courts by asking them to first determine whether Trump\u2019s actions on Jan. 6 amounted to officials versus private acts before they decide whether\u00a0immunity\u00a0might extend to official acts.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Trump based a bulk of his argument on a 1982 decision called <em>Nixon v. Fitzgerald <\/em>in which the high court ruled that presidents enjoy \u201cabsolute immunity\u201d from civil lawsuits for official actions within the \u201couter perimeter\u201d of their duties.<\/p>\n<p>Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said he believes sending the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which actions in the indictment are public or private is a decent bet based on the justices\u2019 responses during oral arguments and what legal experts have discussed online.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBased on precedent in the <em>Nixon<\/em> case, what the Chief Justice was saying during oral arguments, I think that\u2019s where we\u2019ll end up,\u201d Rahmani said. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s also what everyone\u2019s predicting,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n<p>Under that scenario, the case would fall back into Chutkan\u2019s hands. She or a jury would determine which actions in Smith\u2019s indictment are private and can thereby be prosecuted \u2014 and which, if any, would be considered within the scope of Trump\u2019s duties and therefore shielded from prosecution.<\/p>\n<p>This outcome raises the question of how soon the case will move to trial after the Supreme Court rules. If the judge\u2019s sorting of private versus public conduct must happen before a trial can take place, it will surely mark a loss for Smith, who is pushing the case adjudicated before the Nov. 5 presidential election.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s not clear whether the Supreme Court will allow further appeals once Chutkan makes determinations about public versus private conduct.<\/p>\n<p>The justices likely won\u2019t make any determinations about Trump\u2019s specific conduct between November 2020 and Jan. 6, 2021, mainly because the question they sought to answer when considering Trump\u2019s case was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/trump-v-united-states-3\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>presented<\/a> as, \u201cWhether, and if so, to what extent does a former <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-mulling-briefs-from-trump-allies-and-ex-officials-in-immunity-bid\/\" title=\"Supreme Court reviewing requests for immunity from Trump allies and former officials in pending cases\">president enjoy presidential immunity<\/a> from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2>Trump might not be immune from everything, but the delay is what counts<\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court\u2019s decision to wait until the final two weeks of June to determine whether Trump has partial, full, or no immunity is in itself a small victory for the former president.<\/p>\n<p>Trump\u2019s argument since the beginning stages of his indictment is that the case should not head to trial before the election, arguing that a Democratic administration trying the Republican nominee months before the election amounts to a new level of interference.<\/p>\n<p>The former president has already won part of the delay strategy, given that Chutkan initially planned for the case to head to trial on March 4.<\/p>\n<p>However, Smith\u2019s 2020 election subversion case is not an impossible one to bring to trial before the election. Chutkan has already completed a bulk of the pre-trial procedures, and depending on the complexity of a potential immunity standard set by the court, she could make her private versus public fact-finding determinations faster than some court watchers have so far predicted.<\/p>\n<h2>Supreme Court can also find no immunity at all<\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court could ultimately subvert legal experts\u2019 predictions and find that Trump does not enjoy any immunity from the four-count indictment.<\/p>\n<p>The three-judge panel on the circuit court found that \u201cany executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>However, it seems as if the justices may come to at least a somewhat different conclusion than the lower courts, given that they could have decided not to take the case in the first place and leave the circuit court\u2019s judgement in place.<\/p>\n<p>In August, Trump pleaded not guilty to the four-count election subversion case against him, which accuses him of two counts of obstruction and conspiracy to defraud the nation along with conspiracy against voting rights.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court is also prepared to rule in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/3008829\/jack-smith-election-case-hangs-by-thread\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Fischer v. United States<\/a><\/em>, a case that asks whether those pair of obstruction charges against Trump were misapplied to the former president and hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants who were arrested following the riot at the Capitol.<\/p>\n<p>Decisions in both cases are expected by the end of the month.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court is set to rule on a pivotal 2024 case regarding whether ex-President Donald Trump can assert complete immunity against his criminal charges. Decisions are expected Thursday and Friday at 10 a.m. local time<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2272210,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/AP24116581640026.webp","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2272209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/AP24116581640026.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2272209","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2272209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2272209\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2272210"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2272209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2272209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2272209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}