Tyler Durden – As Bloomberg notes, the decision – which kicks the ball back to the lower court – ‘all but ensures’ that a trial won’t happen in Trump’s classified documents case before the November election.
The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.
“Just as former presidents have immunity from civil liability for official acts, they have immunity from criminal prosecution unless they are impeached and removed from office for the crime alleged. This decision is supported by the writings of the framers of the Constitution, the text of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,” wrote X user Martin Harry.
As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley notes, now “the issue is whether what constitutes official acts,” adding that the ruling will “further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons.”
“The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers.”
…Note this language:
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and…— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 1, 2024
KEY PARAGRAPH: "Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer… https://t.co/Ux5gGq8EsY
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 1, 2024
Meanwhile, Justice Thomas called into question the legality of Smith’s office:
Justice Thomas' concurrence in Trump v. U.S. is hugely significant. He questions whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's office is constitutional.
"If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private…
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) July 1, 2024
Justice Thomas:
"We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office. To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be 'established by Law.' As James Madison cautioned, '[i]f there is any point in which the…
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) July 1, 2024
In a blistering dissent, Justice Sotomayor writes that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”
“Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom… the court gives former President trump all the immunity he asked for and more.”
Justice Sotomayor's dissent warning is unlike anything I've ever seen in a Supreme Court opinion https://t.co/eXkFnckIY7 pic.twitter.com/kNNbde5WzE
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) July 1, 2024
Special counsel Jack Smith is leading two federal probes against Trump, both of which led to criminal charges. In Washington, Trump has been targeted over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, while a Florida case revolves around the mishandling of classified documents – for which Trump has claimed presidential immunity.
In response to the ruling, Trump said on Truth Social that it was a “”BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.”
It's a massive Trump W. Presumptive immunity for official acts.
No J6 trial in DC before the election, absolutely no chance.
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) July 1, 2024
SF Source Zerohedge Jul 2024
To me this whole discussion about Jan. 6th has been bogus. The whole case comes down to just one proof. Was the 2020 fair and the result correct or was it rigged and a miscarriage of justice?
President Trump had a great deal of real proof that the election was stolen in all swing states. He knew the real numbers according to Peter Navarro and many other advisors. Peter Navarro is in prison right now for his involvement, but was his evaluation correct? That has never been determined.
Actually this doesn’t matter as far as the Trump case is concerned. He had information before the insurrection that said the election was stolen. As President he had duty to get this figured out before the inauguration of the wrong person. That was his job!
Case closed! Jack Smith never had a case, but he has not let that slow him down. The Supreme Court merely clarified the Constitutional duty of the President concerning immunity. It actually did not change anything because Trump was just doing his job and Jack Smith was trying to make that illegal.
We are not one single step closer today in figuring out if the election was stolen or not are we? The proof will be in what Jack Smith does from here. He has to now prove that Trump knew his advisors were lying to him and that the advisors made up the facts of election fraud. Can he do that?
I know what I think. But, what I think is not worth anything. We just need some truth to start coming out.