The State of the Art in Trump’s Supermajority: The Supreme Court’s Case against Prosecutive Deliberations

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, decided that a former president has immunity for his core constitutional powers and does not have immunity for unofficial acts. But at the same time, the court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of Trump’s actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.

The chances for a trial before the election seem remote, and will involve significant delays. If Mr. Trump prevails at the polls, he could order the Justice Department to drop the charges.

She says the court creates a law-free zone around the president, which has upset the status quo since the founding. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.”

It is not the Supreme Court’s job to sift through the evidence and separate protected conduct from the rest, according to Chief Justice Roberts. In the first instance, that analysis is best left to the lower courts.

The district court will have to consider the implications of a prosecution involving Trump in his capacity as president of the Senate regarding the oversight of the certification proceeding.

The Federal District Court of Appeals for the Pro-Trump Moob: High-Energy Prosecutives, Political Correctness, and the Immunity Case

She gave examples: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. There’s a military coup that wants to hold onto power. Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

The United States has only one president at a time, and that position does not grant you a get out of jail free pass, wrote the Federal District Court in Washington.

In March, the court unanimously rejected an attempt to bar Mr. Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which makes people who engage in insurrection ineligible to hold office. The court ruled that states may not use the provision to exclude a candidate for president from the ballot.

The court ruled that the obstruction law federal prosecutors used to prosecute members of the pro-Trump mob was improper. Two of the four charges against Mr. Trump are based on that law.

The court has handled other presidential power cases in a different way. The justices ruled against Nixon within 16 days after hearing oral arguments. The vote was 8-0, with Justice William Rehnquist recusing himself because of his close ties to some of the officials accused of wrongdoing in the case. The court ruled unanimously that states could not prevent Trump from being on the ballot.

The case has moved at a slower pace. Jack Smith, special counsel overseeing the prosecution, wrote in December asking the justices to leapfrog the appeals court and immediately hear the case, that it is urgent public importance that the immunity claim is resolved by this court. Only this court can resolve them, according to him.

At the argument, several of the conservative justices did not seem inclined to examine the details of the charges against Mr. Trump. They said the court should rule on presidential power.

The court had a decision written by the Chief Justice. Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The courts haven’t considered how to distinguish between unofficial and official acts, he wrote, while chiding the lower courts for their fast decisions. He said that the lower courts didn’t look at the conduct alleged in the indictment to figure out which of it should be classified as official and unofficial.

After Judge Chutkan separates the constitutional wheat from the chaff, Trump will probably seek delays, but immunity questions are not the only ones that could be appealed before trial.

Trump also turned his attention to mobilizing donations for his campaign and mounting legal fees by using the conviction as a fundraising tool. Within 24 hours of the guilty verdict, Trump’s campaign boasted raising millions of dollars. It could take several years for Trump and his legal team to appeal the conviction.

Trump’s sentencing was previously scheduled for July 11. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo were expected to testify on Capitol Hill the next day at the request of Republican lawmakers who have been critical of the trial. After the sentencing prosecutors had previously said they would be willing to testify.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office will not oppose the request to delay the case because they believe the arguments for a delay have no merit.

Disclosing the Result of the Pre-Sentencing Meeting of the New York City Department of Probation (D.C.P.)

Following the verdict, Trump completed a routine pre-sentencing interview with the New York City Department of Probation conducted virtually. The Manhattan district attorney’s office, along with Trump’s lawyers, each submitted sentencing recommendations last month. He is not expected to face jail time for not releasing the documents to the public.