This is easily the biggest Supreme Court story of the day is that the Court has finally ruled on Trump’s immunity and we’re going to level with you: This is a BREAKING story, so we haven’t had a chance to read it in detail. But it appears that the Court has said in essence a President/former President is immune from prosecution when he or she is engaged in their official duties, not when it is outside of them and, crucially, the lower courts need to analyze that question first.
So basically, they are giving the lower courts guidance, and the lower courts will have to look at the immunity question, again, in light of that guidance. And then there is the possibility of further appeals.
Mind you, that is quick, snap analysis. This author’s views might radically change when we get to do things like … read the whole opinion.
...As expected, it is a Roberts opinion. There is immunity recognition...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 1, 2024
...No protection for unofficial acts. So the issue is whether what constitutes official acts. It is a very for Trump in the sense that the Court rejected the lower court and recognizes some immunity. That will further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 1, 2024
The cut off text:
That will further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons. The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers.
As we have said before, a delay for Trump is likely to be a victory.
...Note this language:
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 1, 2024
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and…
The cut off text:
Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
...Now this:
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 1, 2024
"With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role…
The cut off text:
‘With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. So the Government may argue that consideration of the President’s communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’
As we said, we haven’t read it in detail. Heck, we’re not sure that Turley is done with that thread.
This is a breaking news story, and we expect deeper analysis as the day goes on (not to mention more reactions).
Update: We don't know about you, but Twitter/X embedding is having trouble showing Turley's post with a link to the opinion in it when we open this page. So, let's try another tweet with a link to the opinion in it, and hopefully that will work better, so you can actually read it.
🚨The Supreme Court rules that President Trump has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution for all "official acts" he took while in office. The vote is 6–3 with all three liberals dissenting. https://t.co/ovLYlcsF4s
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 1, 2024
Hopefully, that will work for you if the other didn't. We apologize for any difficulty you may have experienced but we wouldn't be surprised if Twitter/X is breaking a little under the pressure.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member