Posted on 07/01/2024 6:33:16 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be issuing Opinions at 10:00 a.m. this morning for the October 2023 term. You can read the opinions released thus far at Supreme Court opinions.
The attorneys at scotusblog will be liveblogging the release of opinions from the pressroom.
There are four cases remaining undecided for the October 2023 term.
October sitting: All opinions have been released;
November sitting: All opinions have been released;
December sitting: All opinions have been released;
January sitting: All opinions have been released.
February sitting: There are three cases pending.
Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, (an Administrative Procedure Act issue), and the two First Amendment cases. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton.
March sitting: All opinions have been released.
And then there is the case we are all waiting for from the...
April setting: There is one case remaining undecided.
Which is the case of Trump v. U.S., No. 23-939 [Arg: 4.25.2024]
Issue(s): Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
Opinion days are fun but nerve-racking. Join the fun, post your comments and insights here at the thread, and, say a prayer for the Justices!
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
some portions are remanded to decide official vs unofficial acts. The Fat Lady hasn’t finished her song.
“Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations—such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions.”
Ultimately, it delays Jack Smith more for the time being .
Presidential records must be official. He decides what to declassify. It is his call.
He was not president at that time. Also, this case doesn’t have anything to do with the BS case.
Yep, stalls Smith until after Trump beats the demented candidate and drops the case.
“Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations—such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions.”
(iv) The indictment also contains various allegations regarding Trump’s conduct in connection with the events of January 6 itself. The alleged conduct largely consists of Trump’s communications in the form of Tweets and a public address. The President possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701. So most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453.
Whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. Pp. 28–30.
(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President
or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32.
(c) Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and
convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment
Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution.
Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government. Pp. 32–34.
(d) The Government takes a similarly broad view, contending that the President enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for any action. On its view, as-applied challenges in the course of the trial suffice to protect Article II interests, and review of a district court’s
decisions on such challenges should be deferred until after trial. But questions about whether the President may be held liable for particular actions, consistent with the separation of powers, must be addressed at the outset of a proceeding. Even if the President were ultimately not found liable for certain official actions, the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render him “unduly cautious in the
discharge of his official duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752, n. 32.
The Constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective functioning of government.” Id., at 751. Pp. 34–37.
(e) This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity
applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office. Pp. 41–43. 91 F. 4th 1173,
vacated and remanded
The buried lede in this decision : presumption of immunity for outer perimeter executive action! Woooooohoooooo. It’s a HUGE FU to Smith.
yes, correct. He was still Prez at the time.
Presidential records must be official. He decides what to declassify. It is his call.
This should kill the Florida case. Georgia? I would think that would be an official act too…?
Thanks, Mr. Hall Monitor.
Yes, BIG
The Stormy Daniels BS was only elevated to a felony because of federal campaign finance laws. Campaign finance must be an official act.
This is the Jack Smith case in a nutshell. Trump had the right to the documents.
Of all of the cases, I think the documents case is the one most likely to be tossed first. Hard to argue that determining documents to be personal rather than presidential records is not an official act, even if that determination is not held to be correct. And if the act was not a crime, then the obstruction charge would not stand either.
Long story short, this case is coming nowhere near a trial before election day.
The argument that will be made is that the things for which he is being prosecuted were no official acts, but were acts taken in his personal capacity (the hush money case) or as a candidate, not as president (J6, documents, RICO case). Not saying that will prevail, just saying this isn’t over on any of the cases.
Those cases are the most damaging. Heres my read.
Re J6 they in essence find whatever decision he made is protected.
Documents - also protected as it comes under presidential powers
RICO - he questioned the results. Dems have done that. He asked a mundane question of can you find votes. Not can you manufacture votes.
Personal Liability
Key will be if the appeals on the Bragg case reach the supreme court will they see through the obvious local vs federal jurisdiction issue.
Yes.. the presumptive immunity makes this a big win for Trump and MAGA...
“Of all of the cases, I think the documents case is the one most likely to be tossed first. Hard to argue that determining documents to be personal rather than presidential records is not an official act, even if that determination is not held to be correct. And if the act was not a crime, then the obstruction charge would not stand either.”
Just one of the reasons that case should be tossed.
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.