CThis is the final decision of the last day of the Supreme Court session. Monday, 1is July, in the Trump versus USA case, it ruled that Donald Trump enjoyed absolute presidential immunity, but not always, and not for everything. In front of the colonnaded building, the police have been deployed, but the crowd is small. Washington is resigned.
There’s Tim Smith, a Pennsylvania artist who’s been to every Trump trial, shrugging: “I came to see it all fall apart…” And Nadine Seiler, another regular: “I’m pissed. I knew they were going to do it, but I’m still pissed. Delay, delay, delay, that’s what they did, and Trump won’t face any consequences for January 6th until the election, end of story.”
Incitement to insurrection
What is it? On August 23, Donald Trump was indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith for his attempts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election. This is the federal criminal trial known as the “January 6” trial. Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States; obstruction of due process; conspiracy to commit it; and conspiracy against the voting rights of Americans. He has pleaded not guilty.
That trial was scheduled to begin on March 4, but in October 2023, his lawyers argued that his actions were protected by presidential immunity. Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled against Trump in early December 2023, and he appealed. In January, the Court of Appeals heard his lawyers, and upheld Chutkan’s ruling in early February.
READ ALSO Biden or Trump? What will make the difference in the next US presidential election? So Trump went back to the Supreme Court, which announced on February 28 that it would hear the case on April 25. By taking it up, it was already pushing back Jack Smith’s trial. It then took almost four months to issue its final decision. Of course, it was also the final case it heard.
But in the Colorado case, which declared Trump ineligible for office because he had incited an insurrection, it issued its decision in less than nine months, in time for him to appear on the ballot for Super Tuesday, the day of the major Republican primary.
“Within the scope of his official responsibility”
“We conclude that under our constitutional separation of powers structure, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president be immune from prosecution for official acts while in office,” Roberts wrote, joined by the five other conservative justices: Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Roberts cited the need for presidents to “execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly” without the threat of prosecution. This immunity is presumed for actions “within the scope of his official responsibility,” with the burden on the Justice Department to prove that a lawsuit “would not impinge” on the authority and functions of the executive branch. “For non-official acts, there is no immunity,” he added.
READ ALSO Biden should forfeit…and so should TrumpTrump hailed the Truth Social decision: “HUGE WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” For some, the Supreme Court is a personal matter. Aquilino Gonell, a police officer who was attacked by 40 people and seriously injured on January 6, fumed: “There should be no immunity for a former president or candidate who tried to overthrow a democratic institution by inviting thousands of people to the Capitol and then incited them to attack.”
Its role in the Constitution
How does the decision translate into Trump’s indictment? The court reviewed the four categories of conduct described there. His discussions with the Justice Department after the election are covered by immunity. Jack Smith’s indictment is redacted of the corresponding conduct.
For example, Trump asked his attorney general to investigate election fraud, and to send a formal letter to the states concerned. He refused. “Trump repeatedly threatened to replace him,” the decision notes. This can no longer be prosecuted.
READ ALSO The blast effect of Joe Biden’s failed debate against Donald TrumpAs for the pressure he allegedly exerted on his Vice President Mike Pence, whom he asked to block the certification of the electoral votes, the Court does not decide. It considers that “whenever the President and the Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they perform an official act.” But the certification of the votes, by the Vice President, is his responsibility by virtue of his function as President of the Senate, not the executive branch. It will be up to the government – that is to say Jack Smith – to prove that it can counter the presumed immunity.
Finally, for her role in the constitution of a parallel electoral college and her conduct during the storming of the Capitol by her supporters, the Supreme Court remands the decision to the district court. Tanya Chutkan will have to determine whether her conduct, in these two cases, was official or unofficial.
A king above the law
The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow Democrats Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The decision creates “a lawless zone around the president,” she wrote. “When he uses his official powers in any way, the majority reasoned, he can now be shielded from criminal prosecution. He orders a special operations unit to assassinate a political rival? He has immunity. He stages a military coup to cling to power? He has immunity. He accepts a bribe in exchange for a presidential pardon? Immunity, immunity, immunity, immunity… Whenever he uses his official power, the president is now a king above the law.”
READ ALSO From chaos to AmericaIn the immediate future, Chutkan must schedule a hearing to decide what constitutes an official act. In January, she warned that she would give Trump’s lawyers three months to prepare for a trial. If she were to hurry, she could schedule it in October, at the end of the presidential campaign and shortly before the election, but that would be a tight deadline. If the trial doesn’t happen before the election, and Trump wins, since it’s a federal trial, he could get rid of it.
Trump was convicted of falsifying the Trump Organization’s accounts to influence an election — the so-called “kickback” case involving porn actress Stormy Daniels. He is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11, but he is asking to postpone it because some of the evidence the prosecution is using concerns official acts from Trump’s time in the White House. The Supreme Court ruling rules out their use. His two other trials, over classified documents in Florida and over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, are on hold.
“I don’t forget…”
With this decision, the Supreme Court has just played a major role in the upcoming presidential election. Because the trial of January 6 was the most important. For Gonell, this is unacceptable: “The former president and his supporters want people to forget January 6, they repeat that it was nothing. I do not forget. I have scars on my right foot, I remember it every time I put on my shoes. Certain movements of the arm also remind me. As painful as it is, I have to remind others, when I hear that the Supreme Court is delaying the inevitable by declaring that he benefits from immunity. Trying to destroy our democracy is not an official act.”
READ ALSO Joe Biden, l’ex-excellent candidatGonell is now helping Joe Biden’s campaign and when asked about his debate performance, he says: “I say to people who are doubting, ‘You think things are bad? Would you like a dictatorship? Because that’s what Donald Trump says he’d like to do if he gets re-elected.’ Joe Biden is not the guy who says he’s going to pardon people who attacked me.”
The mood around the Supreme Court is gloomy. Mike, a tourist from Wisconsin with his family, is there by chance and thinks it’s “pretty cool” to have witnessed a historic moment. He was disappointed by the debate. But he thinks Biden should run: “There will be a whole group to help him make decisions, the question is less the man than the party and I’m more worried about seeing the Republican Party dominate.” Nadine Seiler too: “Personally, I would like him to withdraw. But I’m realistic, it wouldn’t help us. Historically, the times when a candidate has been replaced, the new one has lost.” They are relying on the verdict of the ballot boxes.
