Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Former President Donald Trump has overcome a major political hurdle in his quest for a White House re-run.

SCOTUS – the United States Supreme Court – ruled 6-3 in Trump’s favour.

The six siding justices included Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett – who filed a partial agreement.

Here’s a rundown:

Handing down their opinion, the six-justice majority warned that political prosecution of former Presidents would force future presidents to practice “undue caution” in acting on their constitutional duties.

Resolving the issue of immunity, the justices drew a clear distinction between official and unofficial acts.

The president has immunity wherever his or her actions fall under the duties and responsibilities of his Office.

Presidents have no immunity where his or her actions fall outside the responsibilities and jurisdiction of that office.

Designated “official-acts immunity”, the distinction determines a President’s immunity against indictment and prosecution.

Appearing to describe the case as a ‘critical threshold’, the six justices further explained:

An official act is where a President performs the functions of his office, under, or near enough to, his “constitutional and statutory authority.”

They then castigated the use of presumed motive.

Calling it risky, the six justices said that courts pursuing presumed motive, would put every President on trial based on every allegation that an action was unlawful.”

The constitution, the six justices said, was against the threat of lengthy litigation because it could distract a president from carrying his duties.

He or she would be too “unduly cautious”, impeding the “effective functioning of government.”

This would, they added, “deprive immunity of its intended effect.”

Speaking to allegations designed to paint a picture of “insurrection intent”, the six justices stated,

“The President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority.”

As such,

“Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

A similar rule applies to Donald Trump’s official use of social media, and the president’s right to freedom of speech.

“The President possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf,” the six siding justices clarified.

Indirectly smacking down the Big Tech ban on the President’s accounts, the justices added that most of a President’s “public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer parameter of his official acts.”

Any inquiry into a president speaking in an unofficial capacity, must involve objective analysis of “content, form, and context.”

Legal Football

While the overall ruling was positive for Trump, SCOTUS has handed back the task of ruling on those allegations to the District Courts.

They will have to decide whether to prosecute Trump, based on the official or unofficial actions distinction.

In other words, where immunity – as outlined by SCOTUS – applies and doesn’t.

Here, the siding justices cautioned against overreach.

They reminded the lower courts, “Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution.”

Trump’s accusers must prove that his actions fell outside his official acts as president.

Otherwise, immunity stands.

Trump, along with Biden’s weaponised DOJ, were also admonished.

The ruling declared Trump’s assertions about immunity to be too broad, “lacking in historical evidence.”

Just as excessive, were President Biden’s DOJ claims that President Trump had no immunity.

Despite “the President not being above the law, the President cannot be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers.”

“He is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts,” the six siding justices argued.

“That immunity,” they said, “applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”

Reacting to the ruling, TIME magazine – no friend of the former President – wrote,

“While the case is a landmark ruling on the powers of the American presidency, it will have immediate effects for Trump.”

SCOTUS’s decision, they said, “all but guarantees” delays in Jack Smith’s “2020 election interference” trial against Trump well past the 2024 election.

At which point, Trump could (rightly, in my opinion) get the DOJ to drop the manufactured, politically motivated case.

Dissenting

Dissenting Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson advocated against immunity, labelling Trump’s alleged actions “treasonous”.

The trio’s counter-points were jarringly anti-Trump.

They described the majority opinion as flawed, arguing that “motive and intent” are not to be discarded.

The trio then charged their six colleagues with setting a precedent that would protect even the “most corrupt president from prosecution.”

Claiming the majority had neither “text, history, and established understandings of the President’s role” on their side, the trio declared: “immunity was being invented through brute force.”

Punching home their protest, the three dissenting justices prophesied,

“This majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy.”

To which they added, “No matter how you look at it, the majority’s official-acts immunity is utterly indefensible.”

Bizarrely, Biden appointee Justice Ketanji Jackson concluded her dissenting opinion by suggesting the majority has made a way for Presidents to become kings.

Clearly aimed at Donald Trump, the Biden Supreme Court Justice said,

“The risks are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly anti-constitutional.

“The potential for great harm to American institutions, and Americans themselves is obvious.”

Unconstitutional

Countering Jackson, Justice Clarence Thomas fired shots at the constitutional legitimacy of Biden’s Special Counsel prosecuting Trump.

Justice Thomas said that kings create offices and titles, not presidents.

Jackson should be more concerned about Biden sidestepping the Constitution to persecute political opponents than she is about Trump.

The founders, he added, broke with the monarchical model by giving the president the power to fill offices, not create them.

There are “serious questions about whether [Biden’s] Attorney-General has violated [the founding model], by creating an office of the Special Counsel.”

Therefore, the legitimacy of Biden’s Special Counsel must be established before any prosecution of Trump can continue, Justice Thomas concluded.

The entire 110-page judgment is at least worth skimming.

Ultimately, what the siding six justices have done is set parameters for presidential immunity against the current political persecution precedent.

The majority ruling isn’t just a boost for Donald Trump, it’s a boon for constitutional democracy.

This is largely because by asserting the separation of powers, the six justices shine a light on Biden’s own downright dirty, unconstitutional conduct.

___

Image courtesy of Adobe.