Washington (Associated Press) Supreme Court Monday’s verdict in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case all but ensures that Mr. Trump, a Republican, will face trial in Washington ahead of the November election.
The Supreme Court did not overturn it, as Trump had hoped. The indictment states: He was trying illegally to hang on to power after losing to President Joe Biden, but the ruling marks a major victory for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who has made it his focus to delay legal proceedings until after the election.
The timing of the trial is important because if Trump wins against Biden, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek to dismiss the case and other federal charges he faces. Or Trump could order a pardon for himself.
Shortly after the verdict was announced, Trump posted in capital letters on his social media networks: “A HUGE WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
In remarks Monday night, Biden said the Supreme Court had done the American people a “terrible disservice” and that they had a right to know the outcome of the case before they head to the polls.
“The American people must pass judgment on Donald Trump’s actions,” Biden said. “The American people must decide that his attack on our democracy on January 6th makes him unfit to hold public office.”
The ruling and future developments are as follows:
_____
opinion
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority said former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within the “exclusive scope of constitutional powers” and are entitled to presumptive immunity for all official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or personal acts.
This ruling: Special Prosecutor Jack Smith They cannot proceed with the key charges outlined in the indictment, or at least must defend against their use in future proceedings before a judge.
For example, the Supreme Court rejected Smith’s argument that Trump sought to use the Justice Department’s investigative powers to overturn the election results, finding that his communications with Justice Department officials were clearly protected from prosecution.
The justices sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will now have to “carefully analyze” whether other allegations relate to official conduct that would give the president immunity from prosecution.
One issue that deserves further analysis is Trump’s persistent The relentless persecution of then-Vice President Mike Pence It ordered Congress not to certify the electoral votes on January 6, 2021. The Supreme Court said it was “ultimately the government’s responsibility” to rebut the presumption of immunity in Trump’s interactions with Pence.
The order also directed additional analysis of various posts Trump made on X, then known as Twitter, as well as speeches he made to his supporters. A precursor to the riots at the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court justices said determining whether communications were official or informal conduct “may depend on their respective content and context” and therefore requires further scrutiny.
The False Electoral Scheme
The Supreme Court required new fact-finding into one of the indictment’s most shocking charges – that Trump took part in a plot orchestrated by his allies. Creating fraudulent electoral rolls in battleground states Biden won those states, falsely attributing them to Trump being the winners.
The Trump campaign argues that selecting replacement electors is in line with President Trump’s interest in the integrity and proper administration of federal elections, and cited events that occurred during the contested election of 1876 as a precedent.
In contrast, the Smith team argued that the plan was a purely personal act that did not expose the president to liability.
In their majority opinion, the conservative justices did not answer the question of which side was right, but said “determining whose depiction is correct as to which conduct requires a thorough analysis of the indictment’s broad and interrelated allegations.”
The Supreme Court said that unlike Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department, “the alleged conduct does not neatly fall into the specific duties of the President. Rather, the required analysis is fact-specific and requires evaluating a large number of alleged interactions with a wide variety of Government officials and private citizens.”
Opponents
The three liberal justices, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, harshly criticized the majority opinion in a scathing dissent. Justice Sotomayor, at times shaking her head and gritting her teeth as she read the dissent from the court, delivered a dramatic speech in which she said the conservative majority had wrongly protected the US president as “a king above the law.”
“It’s ironic: The very people charged with enforcing the law can now break the law,” Sotomayor said.
The dissenting justices said the majority’s decision would give a president immunity from prosecution for actions such as ordering Navy SEALs to assassinate political opponents, orchestrating a military coup to maintain power or accepting bribes in exchange for pardons.
“Even if these nightmare scenarios do not come true — and I pray that they never will — the damage has already been done: The president’s relationship with the American people has been irrevocably altered. In every exercise of his civil power, the president is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor wrote.
In a separate dissent, Jackson said the majority’s decision “opens up dangerous new territory.”
“Simply put, the Supreme Court has declared for the first time in its history that the most powerful official in the United States can make the laws for himself (under circumstances that have yet to be fully determined),” Justice Jackson wrote.
The majority opinion accused the liberal justices of “fear-mongering” and said they had spoken in “horrifying and devastating tones that are totally out of proportion to what the Court currently does in practice.”
What’s next?
The case will now be returned to Judge Chutkan. The trial was scheduled to begin in March but was put on hold since December to allow Trump to appeal. Judge Chutkan indicated at the time that once the case returned to his court, he would give both sides at least three months to prepare for trial.
That left open the possibility that the case could go to trial before the election if the Supreme Court, like the lower courts, ruled that Trump could not be spared prosecution.
But the Supreme Court’s decision to order Chutkan to conduct further analysis is expected to stall the case for months as legal battles continue over whether the acts described in the indictment were official or unofficial.
Other Trump cases
Trump He was convicted of 34 felony counts in May. Trump is on trial in New York and is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. The falsifying business records charge carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison, but there is no guarantee that Trump will serve any time in prison. Other possibilities include fines or even probation.
It can be said with almost certainty that Trump’s other two criminal cases There will be no trial before the election.
The appeals court recently halted Trump’s Georgia 2020 election interference lawsuit, but Review the decisions of lower court judges Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has confirmed she will continue to handle the case. A trial date has not been set for the case. Trump’s legal team has argued for presidential immunity in the case, but no decision has been made.
Trump was scheduled to go on trial in May in a separate lawsuit filed by Smith. Classified documents discovered at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White HouseBut U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon canceled the trial date because the case was bogged down in legal issues. She has not yet set a new trial date. The case also involves the Trump campaign’s claim of immunity, which prosecutors are also contesting.
last week, Canon sets the stage for further delays He agreed to review a ruling by another judge that allowed key evidence about alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump to be introduced in the case.
One of Cannon’s arguments – that Smith was illegally appointed and the case should be dismissed – was hardly accepted by the Supreme Court.
A separate concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that Smith’s appointment was improper, but the other justices did not sign it.
_____
Associated Press writers Michelle L. Price in New York, Kate Brumbach in Atlanta and Stephen Groves in Washington contributed.
