WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court Monday’s verdict in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case makes it almost certain that the Republican will not face trial in Washington before the November election.
The Supreme Court did not reject — as Trump had wished — the indictment alleging He illegally tried to hold on to power after his defeat to President Joe Biden. But the ruling is still a major victory for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose legal strategy has focused on delaying the process until after the election.
Shortly after his decision was released, Trump posted in capital letters on his social media: “A GREAT VICTORY FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
The timing of the trial is important because if Trump defeats Biden, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek to dismiss this case and the other federal charges he faces. Trump could also order his own pardon.
Here’s a look at the decision and what comes next:
_____
OPINION
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has said that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.
The decision means that Special Counsel Jack Smith cannot pursue the material allegations contained in the indictment – or must at least defend their use in future proceedings before the trial judge.
The justices, for example, rejected Smith’s allegations that Trump tried to use the Justice Department’s investigative power to overturn the election results, ruling that his communications with agency officials were clearly protected from prosecution.
The justices sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now “carefully analyze” whether other allegations involve official conduct for which the president would be immune from prosecution.
Among the issues that deserve further analysis is Trump’s stubbornness in harassment of then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the electoral votes cast on January 6, 2021. The justices said it was “ultimately up to the government to rebut the presumption of immunity” in Trump’s interactions with Pence.
The order also ordered additional analysis of various messages Trump posted on X, then known as Twitter, as well as a speech he gave to supporters in the before the riot at the United States Capitol. Whether such communication represents official or unofficial acts, the judges said, “may depend on the content and context of each” and therefore requires further examination.
THE COMPROMISE OF FALSE ELECTORS
The judges demanded new research into one of the most stunning allegations in the indictment: that Trump participated in a scheme orchestrated by allies. to enlist fraudulent voter lists in key states won by Biden who would falsely attest that Trump had won in those states.
The Trump team had argued that the selection of alternate electors was consistent with Trump’s presidential interest in the integrity and proper administration of federal elections and cited as precedent an episode it said occurred during the disputed 1876 election.
The Smith team, on the other hand, described the project as a purely private action that involved no presidential responsibility.
In their majority opinion, the conservative justices did not answer the question of which side was correct, saying instead that “determining which characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a careful analysis of the indictment’s broad and interrelated allegations.”
Unlike Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department, the judges said, “this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within the scope of any particular presidential function. Rather, the necessary analysis is fact-specific, requiring the evaluation of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of government officials and private individuals.”
THE DISSENTORS
The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — sharply criticized the majority opinion in scathing dissents. Sotomayor delivered a dramatic speech as she read her dissent from the bench, sometimes shaking her head and gritting her teeth as she said the conservative majority had wrongly singled out the president as “a king above the law.”
“It’s ironic, isn’t it? The man who is charged with enforcing the laws can now break them,” Sotomayor said.
The dissenting justices said the majority decision grants presidents immunity from prosecution for acts such as ordering Navy SEALs to assassinate a political rival, staging a military coup to retain power or accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon.
“Even if these nightmare scenarios never come to pass, and I pray they never do, the damage is done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has changed irrevocably. In every exercise of his official power, the President is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor wrote.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Jackson said the majority’s decision “breaks new and dangerous ground.”
“Simply put: The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (in circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself,” Jackson wrote.
The majority opinion accused the liberal justices of “fear mongering” and adopting a “tone of chilling pessimism that is completely out of proportion to what the Court is actually doing today.”
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The case will now be referred to Chutkan, who will oversee the trial.
The trial was supposed to begin in March, but the case has been on hold since December to allow Trump to pursue his appeal. Chutkan said at the time she would likely give both sides at least three months to prepare for trial once the case returns to her court.
That left the door open to a possible trial before the election if the Supreme Court — like lower courts — decided that Trump was not immune from prosecution.
But the Supreme Court’s decision that Chutkan must conduct further testing is expected to tie up the case for months with legal wrangling over whether the actions mentioned in the indictment were official.
TRUMP’S OTHER BUSINESS
Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts Trump was sentenced to four years in prison for falsifying business records, but there is no guarantee he will serve time in prison. Other penalties are possible, including a fine or probation.
It seems almost certain that Trump’s Two Other Criminal Cases will not be tried before the elections.
An appeals court recently stayed Georgia’s 2020 election interference case, while it examines the decision of the lower court judge allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the case. No trial date had been set in the case. Trump’s lawyers have argued presidential immunity in the case, though no ruling has been issued.
Trump was scheduled to go to trial starting in May in Smith’s other case, involving Classified documents discovered at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White HouseBut U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon canceled the trial date because the case has become mired in legal issues. She has not yet scheduled a new trial. The case also involves a Trump team’s request for immunity, which prosecutors have challenged.
Last week, The cannon paved the way for further delays by agreeing to review a ruling by another judge that allowed crucial evidence related to Trump’s obstruction of justice allegations to be introduced into the case.
One of Cannon’s arguments – that Smith was appointed illegally and the case should be dismissed – had little traction with the Supreme Court.
A separate decision by Justice Clarence Thomas found that Smith’s appointment was improper, but no other justice signed that decision.
_____
Associated Press writers Michelle L. Price in New York, Kate Brumback and Stephen Groves in Washington contributed to this report.
News Source : apnews.com
Gn usa
