Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the conservative majority of creating a dangerous precedent: establishing a new model of presidential accountability that grants undue immunity to the highest office.
By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia
On Monday, July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has immunity for some of his conduct during his presidency in his federal election interference case. However, other actions may not be protected. This decision adds another layer of complexity to the potential trial proceedings.
In a closely watched case exploring the boundaries of presidential power, the justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to reject Trump’s sweeping immunity claim. The ruling means that charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results will not be dismissed outright. However, the court indicated that actions closely tied to his presidential duties are off-limits to prosecutors.
Trump has already been convicted on 34 felony charges related to a hush-money scheme to conceal an extramarital affair with an adult film star while Melania Trump was pregnant.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized the need for lower courts to examine further which actions Trump can be prosecuted for. Specifically, the court determined that Trump’s interactions with Justice Department officials and Vice President Mike Pence in the lead-up to the January 6 Capitol attack by his supporters are considered core presidential powers and thus immune from prosecution.
“The president is not above the law,” Roberts wrote. “But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution.”
The ruling leaves the future of the case uncertain, requiring further proceedings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Judge Chutkan will now review other alleged conduct by Trump, including his communications with state election officials, private parties, and members of the public, to determine if they qualify as official acts.
The court’s liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor arguing that the ruling undermines a fundamental constitutional principle that no individual is above the law. “Trump will now be insulated from criminal prosecution. In every use of official power, the President is now a king, above the law,” said Sotomayor.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a strongly worded dissent, accused the conservative majority of creating a dangerous precedent by establishing a new model of presidential accountability that grants undue immunity to the highest office.
“With that understanding of how our system of accountability for criminal acts ordinarily functions, it becomes much easier to see that the majority’s ruling in this case breaks new and dangerous ground,” Jackson wrote.
“Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: A Presidential accountability model that creates immunity — an exemption from criminal law — applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government,” she added.
Justice Jackson further warned of the broader implications of the ruling, suggesting that even a hypothetical president who commits grave crimes, such as ordering assassinations of political rivals or instigating a coup, could potentially claim immunity under the new model.
Trump, who faces about 50 other charges related to the 2020 election, has openly discussed executing his rivals.
