N※N

Stocks and Investing
Source : (remove) : The Messenger
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Stocks and Investing
Source : (remove) : The Messenger
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Mixeddayforglobalstocksaslatest Trumpleviestakeeffect

Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity in Landmark Case Involving Former President Trump

In a decision that has sent shockwaves through the American political landscape, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that former presidents enjoy broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office. The 6-3 ruling, delivered on Monday, directly impacts the ongoing federal case against former President Donald Trump related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that such immunity is essential to protect the presidency from undue interference, stating that "the President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

The case, Trump v. United States, stems from special counsel Jack Smith's indictment of Trump on charges including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding. These charges arose from Trump's actions following the 2020 election, such as pressuring state officials to alter vote counts and inciting the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The Supreme Court's opinion delineates a tiered approach to immunity: absolute protection for core constitutional duties, like pardoning powers or foreign relations; a presumption of immunity for other official acts, which can be rebutted only if prosecutors show no threat to executive function; and no immunity for unofficial acts.

Roberts argued that without this safeguard, presidents could face constant legal threats, paralyzing their ability to govern. "The President must be able to perform his duties without fear of prosecution," the opinion reads, drawing on historical precedents like the Nixon-era Watergate scandal, where immunity was not fully tested in court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority, with Thomas adding a concurrence questioning the validity of Smith's appointment as special counsel.

The dissenting justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—delivered a scathing rebuke, warning that the ruling effectively places the president above the law. Sotomayor, in a fiery dissent read from the bench, painted dystopian scenarios: "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune." She argued that the decision undermines the foundational principle that no one is above the law, potentially enabling future abuses of power. Jackson, in her separate dissent, highlighted the ruling's departure from constitutional text and history, noting it could erode public trust in democratic institutions.

Legal experts have mixed reactions. Some, like constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, decry it as a "dangerous expansion of executive power," while others, such as former Attorney General William Barr, praise it for preserving presidential independence. The decision remands the case back to lower courts, tasking U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan with determining which of Trump's actions qualify as official versus unofficial. This process could delay the trial beyond the 2024 election, a point Trump has leveraged in his campaign, framing the prosecutions as politically motivated "witch hunts."

The ruling's implications extend far beyond Trump. It could shield future presidents from accountability for actions deemed official, raising questions about checks and balances. For instance, if a president uses military force in a controversial manner or manipulates federal agencies for personal gain, prosecutors might struggle to overcome the immunity presumption. Historians point to parallels with the framers' intent; Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 69 argued the president should not be a king, yet this decision arguably elevates the office to near-monarchical status in certain realms.

Politically, the decision has galvanized both sides. Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have condemned it as a blow to democracy. In a primetime address, Biden stated, "This ruling means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. It's a fundamental break from our traditions." He called for constitutional reforms, such as term limits for justices and a binding ethics code, to restore balance. Republicans, conversely, hail it as a victory against what they see as partisan lawfare. Trump, posting on Truth Social, declared, "Big win for our Constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!"

The case originated from Trump's appeal after lower courts rejected his immunity claims. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had unanimously ruled against him, stating, "For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant." The Supreme Court took up the matter in February, hearing oral arguments in April, where Trump's lawyers argued for sweeping protections, while Smith's team contended that no one, not even a former president, is immune from crimes against the republic.

This isn't the first time the Court has weighed in on presidential privileges. In United States v. Nixon (1974), it ordered the release of Watergate tapes, rejecting absolute executive privilege. Yet here, the conservative majority distinguished criminal immunity as a separate, necessary shield. Critics argue this creates a double standard: presidents can act with impunity in office, only facing potential consequences after leaving, if at all.

As the nation digests this ruling, attention turns to its ripple effects. In the federal election interference case, Chutkan must now classify actions like Trump's call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger—asking him to "find" votes—as official or not. Similarly, his interactions with Justice Department officials and Vice President Mike Pence during the electoral count could be scrutinized. Smith has indicated he will argue many acts were unofficial, but the high bar set by the Court complicates this.

Broader societal impacts are already evident. Protests erupted outside the Supreme Court, with demonstrators chanting "No one is above the law." Legal scholars predict an uptick in challenges to executive actions, potentially leading to more Supreme Court interventions. For Trump, facing additional trials in Florida (classified documents), Georgia (election interference), and New York (hush money, where he was convicted on 34 felonies), this ruling offers a lifeline, at least temporarily.

In the context of the 2024 presidential race, where Trump leads Biden in several polls, the decision amplifies narratives of a weaponized justice system. Biden's campaign has seized on it to rally voters, emphasizing threats to democracy. Meanwhile, Trump's team portrays it as vindication, bolstering his image as a fighter against the establishment.

Ultimately, this ruling reshapes the American presidency. It affirms that while the officeholder is not a monarch, certain actions are insulated from judicial review, prompting debates on whether Congress should legislate clearer boundaries. As Sotomayor warned, "With fear for our democracy, I dissent." The full ramifications will unfold in the coming months, as courts, politicians, and the public grapple with a presidency now more fortified against accountability. (Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full The Messenger Article at:
[ https://www.the-messenger.com/news/national/article_090edc58-cf98-504c-839a-fdb6bbb5e17f.html ]