Trump's Immune System
- briangparker63
- Apr 6
- 5 min read
A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J Trump on four counts related to his actions following the November 2020 election. The indictment accused Trump of conspiring to overturn the election by spreading false claims of fraud to obstruct the certification of results. Trump argued for dismissal based on Presidential immunity, claiming his actions were part of his official duties. However, both the District Court and the D.C. Circuit rejected his motion, stating that former Presidents do not have federal criminal immunity for any acts. They did not address whether the conduct in question involved official acts.
On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) , that under the constitutional principle of separation of powers, a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their constitutional authority. They also have presumptive immunity for official acts, but no immunity applies to unofficial acts.
Concurring
In the majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that, "At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch...There is no immunity for unofficial acts."
Roberts affirmed that the President possesses exclusive powers granted by the Constitution or acts of Congress. He emphasized that Congress cannot intervene in, nor can courts scrutinize, presidential actions falling under the President's definitive constitutional authority.
He clarified that not all presidential actions fall within the exclusive scope of "conclusive and preclusive" authority, especially in areas where authority is shared with Congress. He stated that the Court evaluates presidential immunity by considering the Framers' intent for the separation of powers, prior rulings on presidential immunity in civil cases, and criminal cases involving presidential resistance to document requests.
The Chief Justice advised lower courts to avoid examining Trump's motives or deeming an action unofficial solely because it allegedly breaches a general law. He acknowledged that the court faces more complex challenges in evaluating Trump's interactions with the vice president, state officials, and certain private individuals.
The majority decision concluded that the government carries the burden of disproving the presumption of immunity for presidential acts. It emphasized that not all actions by the President are official, underscoring that the President is not above the law.
Dissenting
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson each wrote individual dissenting opinions.
Justice Sotomayor: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, criticized the decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity, arguing it undermines the constitutional principle that no one is above the law. She wrote, "Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for 'bold and unhesitating action' by the President, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."
She stated further, "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."
Justice Jackson: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with Justice Sotomayor's dissent, criticizing the Court's decision for establishing a precedent that limits the application of criminal law to Presidents. "Under the new Presidential accountability model, the starting presumption is that the criminal law does not apply to Presidents, no matter how obviously illegal, harmful, or unacceptable a President's official behavior might be....unless his conduct consists of primarily (and perhaps solely) of unofficial acts."
She expressed concern that the Court's approach to presidential accountability relies on vague standards and risks granting excessive power to Presidents. "The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court's ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm. But, for all our sakes, I hope they are right. In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent."
Response
/  | After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and his January 20 inauguration, Trump surprised no one when he quickly determined that the Court had given him the license to drastically broaden his powers as President. From appointing unqualified and controversial sycophants to cabinet and sub-cabinet roles, and signing, to date, 111 Executive Orders, based in large measure on rewarding campaign donors and exacting revenge on his perceived enemies. Trump's other actions have had the effect of circumventing or ignoring laws already enacted by Congress. Through his Cabinet appointments, he has drastically eroded the checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution. |
So far, Trump's authoritarian power grab has resulted in 174 legal actions directly related to his executive actions. An ACLU excerpt highlights that before Trump, no president claimed absolute immunity from criminal liability after leaving office. Even Trump’s own legal team acknowledged during his impeachment trial that he could face criminal prosecution post-presidency, aligning with the principle that all citizens, including presidents, are equal under the law. But in Trump v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court established that presidents have constitutional immunity from criminal liability for their "official acts," taken using the powers of the office. This ruling implies that Trump and all future presidents could potentially evade criminal accountability for corrupt acts, even those that undermine democracy.
As California Representative Zoe Lofgren stated, the Court's decision in Trump v. United States "is a radical departure from the Constitutional order and American history -- it elevates the President to a position like a monarch. It is at odds with an essential American value that nobody should be above the law."
The court's broad definition of "official acts" not only shields presidents from criminal liability for actions taken in office but also prevents these acts from being used as evidence in cases of personal crimes. This significantly complicates efforts to prosecute presidents for private criminal acts, with the announced standards making presidential accountability exceedingly challenging.
In short, the majority decision in Trump v. United States codifies another step in the radical Republican effort to destroy the U.S. Constitution and our Democracy, to negate the heroism of the founding fathers, and, in great measure, to return the U.S. to something like the Jim Crow era. The seeds of our new authoritarianism were planted by the Ku Klux Klan and the efforts of American pro-fascists in the 1930s and '40s.
To quote the American Civil Liberties Union, "As long as this misguided decision remains the law, we must fight presidential abuses of power in other ways. In particular, we must resist encroachments on our rights and liberties, criminal or otherwise, before they happen — through civil lawsuits, the ballot box, and in the halls of power across the country."
Mahalo
Commentaires