(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . SCOTUS gives Trump a "presumptive" Immunity for Official Acts [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2024-07-01 More to follow… Lisa Ruben: One of the parts of the holding today is that the District Court has to exclude testimony from the evidentiary hearing which may not be admitted at trial (just now on MSNBC). Official Acts they are naming: Contacts with the Department of Justice EVEN IF those contacts were Trump attempting to interfere in the actions of the DOJ related to investing himself (Reporter Yamish Alcindor via MSNBC) I will look for some uploadable text of the finding ASAP. The decision is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43. (a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15. That last part is the dangerous part. “he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity” (2) Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, precedent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and criminal cases where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents. P. 9. By contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. During the treason trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr, for instance, Chief Justice Marshall rejected President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that the President could not be subjected to a subpoena. Marshall simultaneously recognized, however, the existence of a “privilege” to withhold certain “official paper[s].” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (No. 14,694) (CC Va.). And when a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon, the Court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 703. But recognizing “the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking,” it held that a “presumptive privilege” protects Presidential communications. Id., at 708. Because that privilege “relates to the effective discharge of a President’s powers,” id., at 711, the Court deemed it “fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.” Id., at 708. Pp. 9–12. URL to live SCOTUSBlog on the decision: https://www.scotusblog.com/ From the current live info there: There are no dissenting opinions, although some concurring in parts and concurring in the judgment. 74 The court vacates both decisions, explaining that neither of the lower courts properly considered the nature of the challenges. "The courts mainly addressed what the parties had focused on," even though the challenges argued that the laws were unconstitutional in all their applications. "And the parties mainly argued these cases as if the laws applied only to the curated feeds offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social-media platforms--as if, say each case presented an as-applied challenge brought by Facebook protesting its loss of control over the content of its News Feed." 80 But the court lays out some principles for the lower courts to follow. It indicates, for example, that "the current record indicates that the Texas law does regulate speech when applied in the way the parties focused on below--when applied, that is, to prevent Facebook (or YouTube) from using its content-moderation standards to remove, alter, organize, prioritize, or disclaim posts in its News Feed.” 73 We have the immunity decision. It is by Roberts. The Sotomayor Dissent is striking in it’s language and intent. She is saying this changes the United States Office of the President under Law. I’ll post it when I find it. Neal Katyal, reading from her dissent: “Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. WIth fear for our democracy, I dissent.” ******************************************************* So under this decision, my NOT A LAWYER reading of the information available now is that Joe Biden could tell the Department of Justice to arrest Trump and confine him and try him, by stating that he is a clear and present danger to the United States. ******************************************************* x There's an important sub-part of the Trump immunity ruling in which #SCOTUS holds that "protected conduct" (that can't be prosecuted) also can't be used as *evidence* to establish other charges. Justice Barrett, otherwise concurring, agrees with the dissenters that that's wrong. — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 1, 2024 [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/7/1/2250203/-SCOTUS-gives-Trump-a-Limited-Immunity-for-Official-Acts?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/