{"id":2286610,"date":"2024-07-01T03:43:02","date_gmt":"2024-07-01T07:43:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/high-stakes-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-immunity-due-monday-washington-examiner-3\/"},"modified":"2024-07-01T03:46:27","modified_gmt":"2024-07-01T07:46:27","slug":"high-stakes-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-immunity-due-monday-washington-examiner-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/high-stakes-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-immunity-due-monday-washington-examiner-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to rule on Trump immunity Monday, reports Washington Examiner"},"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\">22<\/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%2Fhigh-stakes-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-immunity-due-monday-washington-examiner-3%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=2286610&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 Court is anticipated to rule on whether former President Donald Trump is immune \u2062from criminal prosecution concerning charges that he attempted to overturn the 2020\u2064 election. There is a\u200b strong expectation that the Supreme Court may send the case back\u2063 to a lower court to distinguish between Trump&#8217;s public acts, which could be protected by presidential immunity, and private acts, which might not be. Trump asserts that his presidential actions should grant him complete immunity, including\u200b from criminal charges, an idea not definitively supported during the justices&#8217; \u200doral arguments.\u200b Previously, two lower courts denied Trump&#8217;s broad claim of \u200dimmunity, reflecting the complexities of defining the scope of presidential immunity post-office.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court&#8217;s forthcoming decision, \u2062expected by July 1, plays a critical role both legally and politically. If the Court decides \u2063to send the case back to \u2062the trial judge, it may cause delays that could\u2064 push the trial beyond the 2024 presidential election, potentially favoring Trump\u2019s strategic timeline. Alternatively, a ruling denying immunity would allow \u2063the trial to proceed promptly, influencing the election landscape directly. This decision revolves around intricate constitutional interpretations and historic\u200c precedents such as those relating to former President Richard Nixon and the implications on the functionality of government.<\/p>\n<p>This case not only impacts \u200bTrump but \u200dalso sets a\u200b significant\u2064 precedent regarding the extent of presidential\u2064 immunity\u2064 after leaving office, intertwining legal \u2062and political threads as the U.S. heads towards another election cycle.  <\/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 expected to rule Monday on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/donald-trump\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Donald Trump<\/a>&lsquo;s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution surrounding his four-count indictment on an alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election.<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/3051399\/how-supreme-court-could-rule-trump-immunity\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">strongest possibility<\/a> that legal experts have suggested is that the case will be returned to a lower court, where a judge will wrestle over the facts of the case to determine which actions may be considered &ldquo;public&rdquo; conduct that is shielded by presidential immunity, and which acts constituted &ldquo;private&rdquo; conduct that may not be covered by immunity.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>Protesters demonstrate outside the Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments over whether&nbsp;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>The case centers on whether Trump can challenge special counsel <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/jack-smith\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Jack Smith<\/a>&rsquo;s indictment for allegedly trying to subvert the 2020 election. Trump argues that former presidents should have full immunity for actions taken while in office and that a conviction should first require an impeachment, though the justices <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/2978885\/supreme-court-open-middle-ground-trump-immunity\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">did not sound poised to grant full immunity<\/a> based on their oral arguments in late April.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Lower Court Decisions and Supreme Court Deliberations<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Two lower courts have ruled against Trump&rsquo;s claim of broad immunity, which began with a ruling against Trump by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who is assigned to his cause.<\/p>\n<p>However, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, two conservative justices who often vote together in consequential cases, suggested during April oral arguments that the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit may have erred in its approach.<\/p>\n<p>At one point in the hearing, Kavanaugh pushed back on the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-debate-performance-renews-spotlight-on-hur-tapes-washington-examiner\/\" title=\"Biden debate performance renews spotlight on Hur tapes - Washington Examiner\">special counsel&#038;rsquo<\/a>;s position that there is no mention in the Constitution of immunity for former presidents.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;It&rsquo;s not explicit in the Constitution, but also executive privilege is not explicit in the&nbsp;<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/Constitution\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Constitution<\/a>,&rdquo; Kavanaugh said, referencing an established idea that presidents may withhold documents and information from the other branches of government.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Elena Kagan pushed Trump&rsquo;s attorney on just how far presidential immunity could extend, raising a hypothetical scenario of a military coup by a former president.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;How about if a president orders the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/military\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">military<\/a>&nbsp;to stage a coup?&rdquo; Kagan asked.<\/p>\n<p>Former President&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/Richard-Nixon\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Richard Nixon<\/a>&nbsp;was a key historical figure that was leaned upon in the hearing. Trump in part rests his arguments on a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found former presidents are entitled to immunity from civil litigation for actions taken in office. Trump contends the same protection should apply to a former president for criminal charges as well, because the same concerns cited in the Nixon decision pertaining to &ldquo;functioning of government&rdquo; should apply.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Potential Outcomes<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>&bull; Partial Immunity\/ Sending the Case Back To Trial Judge<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court might <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/high-stakes-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-immunity-due-monday-washington-examiner-2\/\" title=\"Supreme Court to rule on Trump immunity Monday, per Washington Examiner\">instruct lower courts<\/a> to determine whether Trump&rsquo;s actions on January 6 were official or private before deciding on immunity. This could delay the trial, which Trump has aimed to push beyond the 2024 election.<\/p>\n<p>&bull; <strong>No Immunity<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The justices could conversely rule that Trump does not have any immunity from prosecution, allowing the trial to proceed as planned. This would align with lower court rulings that former presidents can face criminal charges for actions taken in office.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Timing and Implications<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision to delay the ruling until July 1 has provided Trump with a temporary reprieve from seeing the case get to trial ahead of the 2024 presidential election. If the court sends the case back, it could delay the trial past the November 2024 election, aligning with Trump&rsquo;s strategy. However, if the court rules against him, the trial could proceed swiftly, impacting the election.<\/p>\n<p>Depending on the complexity of a potential public vs. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/high-stakes-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-immunity-due-monday-washington-examiner\/\" title=\"Supreme Court to rule on Trump immunity Monday, reports Washington Examiner\">private conduct test set<\/a> by the court, Chutkan could get the case back on schedule ahead of the Nov. 5 election. However, legal experts have warned that the possible ambiguities of this test could result in another appeal by Trump or the prosecution if they contest the judge&rsquo;s interpretations.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Broader Context<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Trump pleaded not guilty in August to a four-count indictment related to election subversion.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, a high court decision in <em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3041195\/supreme-court-rules-against-biden-doj-in-high-stakes-jan-6-case\/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Fischer v. United States<\/a> <\/em>could affect whether Trump can still legally face two of the four charges pertaining to obstruction allegations.<\/p>\n<p>Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the law should not be interpreted broadly but instead dependent on language in the overarching statute, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which passed in 2002 after the Enron scandal. The act specified that obstruction meant destroying or manipulating documents that were part of an official proceeding.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/3051399\/how-supreme-court-could-rule-trump-immunity\/\">Legal analysts<\/a> at Just Security conceded that Friday&rsquo;s decision dealt a &ldquo;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/what-happens-to-jan-6-cases-upended-by-supreme-court-ruling-washington-examiner\/\" title=\"What happens to Jan. 6 cases upended by Supreme Court ruling - Washington Examiner\">soft blow&#038;rdquo<\/a>; to the government. They&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/96493\/supreme-court-obstruction-january-6th\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">said<\/a>, however, that &ldquo;very few [Jan. 6] cases are likely to be materially affected&rdquo; and that Trump&rsquo;s case would be &ldquo;materially unaffected.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;The upshot is that the decision means little in terms of the pending charges against former President Donald Trump,&rdquo; the analysts wrote, adding that the allegation Trump created &ldquo;false evidence&rdquo; in the election could be enough to satisfy the Supreme Court&rsquo;s scope of the obstruction charge.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/?d\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Special counsel Jack Smith has said as much in court papers, a sign that Smith would argue he correctly applied the obstruction charges if Trump were to challenge them.<\/p>\n<p><em>Ashley Oliver contributed to this report<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court is set to decide on Monday regarding Donald Trump&#8217;s assertion of immunity from prosecution related to his indictment for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election. Legal experts predominantly believe the case will be sent back to a lower court for further review by a judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2286611,"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\/AP24116448717067.webp","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[538],"tags":[5738,5782,32275,3634,32076],"class_list":["post-2286610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-washington-examiner","tag-immunity","tag-ruling","tag-supreme-court","tag-trump","tag-washington-examiner"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/AP24116448717067.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2286610","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=2286610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2286610\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2286611"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2286610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2286610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2286610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}