Poor widdle commies.
More from Scotusblog:
Sotomayor does not use “respectfully” with “dissent” here or at the end of her dissent, which concludes: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
(Mark will have more from the courtroom, but Justice Jackson’s dissent from the bench in Corner Post also had some strong words. Today’s conference should be interesting!)
Jackson also omits “respectfully” from her separate dissent.
Justice Barrett also has a concurring opinion. She agrees with the majority on the “core constitutional powers” immunity but would take a different approach to other official acts. She would look at whether the criminal statute under which the president is being charged applies to his conduct and whether that application to the particular facts of the case is constitutional.
Justice Sotomayor is still reading from her dissent.
A couple of additional points from the Roberts opinion: The court indicates that the president’s immunity for official acts “extends to the outer perimeter of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”
And in determining what is or is not official conduct, “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
An action is not unofficial, the court adds, just because “it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.”
The court also notes in a footnote that the district court “if necessary” should consider whether two of the charges brought by Jack Smith against Trump in Washington, involving the obstruction of an official proceeding, can go forward in light of the court’s ruling last week in Fischer v. United States, narrowing the scope of that law.
(She is still reading.)