Replies

From scotusblog:

The court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.

Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

There is no immunity, the court holds, for unofficial acts.

The core constitutional powers are things like appointing ambassadors and foreign governments.

The court explains that it does not need to decide in this case whether immunity for official acts is presumptive or absolute.

The court in Part III of its opinion indicates that in this case “no court has thus far considered how” to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.

Moreover, Roberts continues, “the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis” and “did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial” — and it wasn’t briefed before the Supreme Court.

So the Supreme Court isn’t going to make that determination now. Instead, it will send the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings, although it does offer some guidance.

“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.”

(Roberts is still reading from his opinion.)

But later in the opinion, the court does weigh in on some aspects. “Trump is ... absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

The court sends the case back to the district court for it to determine other things, such as “whether a prosecution involving Trump’s attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

Roberts writes that “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized.”

“As for the dissents,” Roberts writes, “they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.”

Sotomayor is now reading from her dissent.

Roberts in his conclusion writes that “This case poses a question of lasting significance.” He notes that the immunity question has not come up before. “But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exegencies.”

Final substantive paragraph: “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 Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”

Justice Thomas writes a concurring opinion in which he questions the validity of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel. “If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone authorized to do so by the American people.”

From the Sotomayor dissent, which is joined by both Kagan and Jackson: Today’s ruling “reshapes the institution of the Presidency” and “makes a mockery of the principle . . . that no man is above the law.” The decision “gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.”