Posted on 07/01/2024 7:50:34 AM PDT by Beave Meister
In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, the court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an agency action first comes into being when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. The court vacates both decisions on Texas and Florida’s social media laws, in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice v. Paxton, explaining that neither of the lower courts properly considered the nature of the First Amendment challenges. In Trump v. United States, the court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
All legal actions against Trump null and void.
SUCK IT JACK!🤡
MAGA!🇺🇲🗽
“Core constitutional powers” has become awfully broad in the last half century.
About effing time! 😤
Democrats are having a bad week.
It they had ruled differently, then 0bama could be prosecuted for ordering the killing of a US citizen, the Hellfire missile strike against a terrorist who was a citizen.
The lefties are going to be apoplectic! Sweet!
And all those working in his Administration are also immune which means Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, and others were illegally sentenced to prison. Time for some evil corrupt dems and rinos to be held accountable and go to prison instead.
“All legal actions against Trump null and void.”
Not true. The Court only acknowledged absolute immunity for “core Constitutional powers.” Neither the NY or Georgia case will be affected, and the federal cases will be remanded back to the trial courts to determine which acts were or were not official acts of the president.
Heads are exploding.
At work and not totally following but...
Shouldn’t this clear but Navarro and bannon of charges since their initial argument was presidential immunity?
Thank you.
Interpretation from SC blog
A divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts more broadly. The decision left open the possibility that the charges brought against former President Donald Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith – alleging that Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election – can still go forward to the extent that the charges are based on his private conduct, rather than his official acts.
So Smith argument is that he did as a private conduct vs. constitutional. However he was President on Jan 6th and gave a speech which he is allowed to do and he is also allowed to question results as did Gore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.