Donald Trump celebrates ‘big win’ after Supreme Court fails to decide if he can be tried over 2020 election claims
DONALD Trump is celebrating a major win after the Supreme Court made a decision in his immunity case, ruling that the former president has impunity only for “official acts” as commander in chief.
However, the court does not define what makes an act as president official versus unofficial.
Trump shared news of the decision on Truth Social, calling it a “big win for our Constitution and democracy.”
“Proud to be an American!”
In a historic 6-3 ruling, the higher court’s decision will still allow the continuation of Trump’s pretrial proceedings in Washington DC, where he’s facing federal charges related to conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results during his final days in office, but still leaves whether or not he will face charges in his federal trial up in the air.
In an unprecedented ruling, the court ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.
The higher court’s historic decision Monday will now likely send the case back to the lower courts to decide what constitutes an official act as President, which may still allow Trump’s case in Washington DC to go to trial.
The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all voted against the majority ruling.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor decried this decision as a mockery of America’s justice system.
“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Sotomayor wrote.
“It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
After the ruling, Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the decision was a “big win for our constitution and democracy,” and that he is proud to be an American.
ELECTION INTERFERENCE
Metal barricades were installed by Supreme Court marshals hours before the higher court’s final decisions were released on Monday.
The decision came four days after Trump and rival Joe Biden locked horns in the first presidential debate on Thursday.
The ruling also came after a series of decisions by the court on Friday, including one that found the Department of Justice overstepped its authority by charging hundreds of people who stormed the capital on January 6 with obstruction.
However, prosecutors can still charge them with obstruction if they can prove they were there to stop the certification of the 2020 election – which is what prosecutors allege, charging Trump with obstruction, conspiracy, and other charges for orchestrating the events of that day.
One of Trump’s worries was that if the case did go to trial, it would’ve interfered with and run well into the heart of the 2024 presidential election.
But after this ruling, it is highly unlikely that if there is a trial, it will start before the election.
US Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith brought the charges against Trump in August 2023, alleging that the former president and others orchestrated a scheme to keep him in power despite losing the 2020 election to Biden – including the events of January 6.
Trump, who pleaded not guilty, filed a motion to dismiss the charges, citing the principle of presidential immunity.
His defense team argued that their client was entitled to “absolute immunity,” partly because the acts were allegedly committed while he was still in office.
They claimed that Trump first had to be impeached by the US Senate for the charges to be filed against him.
The defense also argued that a sitting president should conduct his duties “unhesitatingly, without fear” of future prosecutions by political opponents.
‘ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY’ ARGUMENT
To back his case, Trump repeatedly cited George Washington’s farewell address, arguing that even the Founding Fathers understood that allowing presidents to be prosecuted would be bad for the nation.
However, Special Counsel Smith shot down Trump’s argument, bringing to light former President Richard Nixon’s 1974 pardon.
In June 1972, Nixon was caught in the crossfire of the Watergate scandal that led to criminal charges against five men who were caught breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington DC.
Nixon, who was seeking a second term in The White House at the time, denied any involvement in the scandal.
But, in February 1974, a federal grand jury was planning to present charges of bribery, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice against the president, according to National Archive documents.
As Congress prepared to impeach Nixon, the president resigned on August 9, 1974, leading Vice President Gerald Ford to assume the presidency.
Ford pardoned Nixon a month after taking office, protecting him from criminal prosecution.
To dismiss Donald Trump’s claims, Special Counsel Jack Smith argued why Nixon needed President Ford’s pardon in 1974 if he couldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place.
In December 2023, Trump’s attempts to dismiss the charges were dismissed by a US District Court in Washington DC, ruling that the Constitution does not support his immunity claims.
An appeals court also unanimously ruled against Trump, who proceeded to file an emergency motion to take his case to the Supreme Court.
The higher court’s decision wasn’t the first time it has chimed in regarding a judicial process involving a president.
In 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed a sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton to proceed while he was still in office.
However, unlike Donald Trump, the accusations against Clinton occurred years before his presidency, while he was governor of Arkansas.
Plaintiff Paula Jones and Clinton eventually settled the case.
Similar suits were filed against presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman but were dismissed by the higher court.
One lawsuit against President John F. Kennedy, involving a car accident during his 1960 campaign, was settled.