Trump v. US: Supreme Court Issues Ruling on Presidential Immunity in Criminal Cases
21
Trump v. US (SCOTUS, 2024)
In this case, between Donald J. Trump, former President of the United States, as defendant-appellant (or ‘petitioner’) and the Office of the Special Counsel, lead by Jack Smith, as prosecution-respondent, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the following question of law:
Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
Today, by a vote of 6–3, with (K. B.) Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor JJ. dissenting, the Court answers the question the following way (taken form the opinion’s syllabus):
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
The hearing of the case (i.e. oral arguments):
Trump’s submissions (drafted by Missouri solicitor general, Dean John Sauer):
•
Reply brief (Trump’s response to the Special Counsel’s brief): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/307578/20240415133854183_USSC%2023-939%20-%20Reply%20Brief%20of%20Petitioner.pdf
•
Response to Trump’s first brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/306999/20240408191803801_United%20States%20v.%20Trump%20final%20for%20filing.pdf
Briefs by amici curiae (‘friends of the court’) can all be found and read on the Court’s website:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-939.html
Reply 1
Trump has the worst case for immunity I have ever heard of. Let us hope that the supreme court finds him immune from the election laws, and then declares that he cannot run because he would have no legitimacy.
For those of you wo do not get this: elected officials can never be immune from election laws, that is a contradiction in terms.
So why is this thing even being considered?
For those of you wo do not get this: elected officials can never be immune from election laws, that is a contradiction in terms.
So why is this thing even being considered?
Reply 2
Tolgash
OP
21
Original post
by michaelhwTrump has the worst case for immunity I have ever heard of. Let us hope that the supreme court finds him immune from the election laws, and then declares that he cannot run because he would have no legitimacy.
That’s an interesting take. However, to my knowledge, no one has said that ruling in Trump’s favour would somehow stop him from running, not even the Special Counsel’s team. As I take it, a ruling in Trump’s favour would simply mean that no former President could, so far as their official acts are concerned, be prosecuted for those acts during their time in office. Whether the acts were ‘official’ or not (and Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, made some concessions on this topic) would, I would say, a matter for the first-instance court to figure out (although what happens if some acts are deemed ‘official’ and some not is a little up in the air, or it at least seems that way).
Reply 3
So Biden can now order Trump to be eliminated or imprisoned without any legal repercussion?
Reply 4
Tolgash
OP
21
Original post
by Gazpacho.So Biden can now order Trump to be eliminated or imprisoned without any legal repercussion?
According to the dissent by Sotomayor J., that is indeed a possibility. She writes, in p. 29 of her dissent, that ‘under the majority’s reasoning, [the president] now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune’.
Reply 5
Original post
by TolgashAccording to the dissent by Sotomayor J., that is indeed a possibility. She writes, in p. 29 of her dissent, that ’under the majority’s reasoning, [the President] now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune’.
Sotomayor J is right. The majority ruling is extraordinary. I did not think that Roberts and Kavanaugh would go that far.
Reply 6
This is a very dangerous decision. No person should be above the law, even the leader of a country. What is to stop a future president from using these powers to execute political opponents?
Reply 7
The decision is flat contrary to the Lockean principles on which the USA was established.
Reply 8
Original post
by michaelhwTrump has the worst case for immunity I have ever heard of. Let us hope that the supreme court finds him immune from the election laws, and then declares that he cannot run because he would have no legitimacy.
For those of you wo do not get this: elected officials can never be immune from election laws, that is a contradiction in terms.
So why is this thing even being considered?
For those of you wo do not get this: elected officials can never be immune from election laws, that is a contradiction in terms.
So why is this thing even being considered?
This is a shorted-sighted ruling from a conservative court where half of those conservatives are Trump appointees. The immediate goal is to absolve Trump of his criminal charges but this will have long-lasting devastating effects in the future if Trump or some other similar president is elected.
Reply 9
Original post
by Gazpacho.So Biden can now order Trump to be eliminated or imprisoned without any legal repercussion?
Frankly, at this point, I think he should, though maybe he should wait until after the Republican convention so Trump can't be removed from the ballot 😜
Reply 10
Original post
by anarchism101Frankly, at this point, I think he should, though maybe he should wait until after the Republican convention so Trump can't be removed from the ballot 😜
Ha, Imagine if Trump still won.
Reply 11
Original post
by VivifyHa, Imagine if Trump still won.
The rather boring constitutional answer to the scenario would be that whoever was the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate would become President. But in practical terms we'd obviously be past that were this ever to happen.
Reply 12
Original post
by VivifyHa, Imagine if Trump still won.
Actually he did not. The judges just stated that all his eccentricities were private actions, and not performed as a part of his job.
Reply 13
Original post
by michaelhwActually he did not. The judges just stated that all his eccentricities were private actions, and not performed as a part of his job.
That is not what the majority decision says.
Reply 14
Tolgash
OP
21
Original post
by Stiffy ByngSotomayor J is right. The majority ruling is extraordinary. I did not think that Roberts and Kavanaugh would go that far.
I also felt like Amy Coney Barrett was fairly sceptical of Trump’s arguments at the hearing. Fair enough, she didn’t join the full opinion, but I thought she would do more than simply disagree on an evidential point. Devin Stone, a Californian attorney, has explained the breadth of this immunity.
Politically speaking, this probably means Trump won’t be tried by a federal court for any alleged offences, since both cases have now been delayed to f*ck.
Original post
by Stiffy ByngThe decision is flat contrary to the Lockean principles on which the USA was established.
The Framers craved an emperor god king to secure liberty, didn’t you know? 🤣
Reply 15
Original post
by TolgashI also felt like Amy Coney Barrett was fairly sceptical of Trump’s arguments at the hearing. Fair enough, she didn’t join the full opinion, but I thought she would do more than simply disagree on an evidential point. Devin Stone, a Californian attorney, has explained the breadth of this immunity.
Politically speaking, this probably means Trump won’t be tried by a federal court for any alleged offences, since both cases have now been delayed to f*ck.
The Framers craved an emperor god king to secure liberty, didn’t you know? 🤣
Politically speaking, this probably means Trump won’t be tried by a federal court for any alleged offences, since both cases have now been delayed to f*ck.
The Framers craved an emperor god king to secure liberty, didn’t you know? 🤣
Yep, the Monarchical power granted to the President exceeded any power held by George III.
Reply 16
Original post
by Stiffy ByngThat is not what the majority decision says.
He is immune from works related things, but being a political candidate is not an official duty. The law in the US sets very specific criteria for what counts in this respect. None of the things that many blame Trump for would count as performance of duty. You wonder whether I got this insight, I asked an AI bot 🙂
Reply 17
Original post
by Stiffy ByngThat is not what the majority decision says.
When was this? And which judges? The SCOTUS? If you're referring to the Supreme Court, they left no guidelines as to what constitutes an "official act", potentially letting Trump argue that a broad spectrum of acts while in office were "official".
(edited 1 year ago)
Reply 18
Original post
by VivifyWhen was this? And which judges? The SCOTUS? If you're referring to the Supreme Court, they left no guidelines as to what constitutes an "official act", potentially letting Trump argue that a broad spectrum of acts while in office were "official".
The majority decision does not say, as suggested above, that all of Trump's "eccentricities" were not official actions. It classes some acts as immune from prosecution, others as presumptively immune, and others to be classified according to findings of fact. It is possible to give the ruling a narrow reading, but also a wider one. Roberts appears to think that the ruling can be read narrowly. Jackson and Sotomayor appear to think that it can and maybe will be read widely. Barrett's approach is, as noted above, not the same as the majority's.
One side effect of the ruling is that Trump appointee Judge Cannon has jumped on Thomas's concurring opinion to toss the secret documents case (a slam dunker on its facts) because of the appointment of Special Counsel. Let's see what the Eleventh Circuit say on that.
Trump was able to appoint several first instance Federal Judges such as Cannon who are manifestly not up to the job.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Is Trump a bad person / why do people like him?
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 3 - 10th June 2025 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A-level Politics Paper 2 - 5th June 2025 [Exam Chat]
- What stupid thing did Trump do today?
- Violence in LA
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Good introductory books on LGBT Law for EPQ?
- feedback for history 16 marker
- Working Abroad
- The UK Supreme Court defines a woman based on biological sex
- American student - chances at Oxford law with law studies in france?
- Trump and His Cabinet Explained
- In what ways have Prime Ministers become more Presidential in recent years? (30)?
- Inauguration of Donald Trump as 47th POTUS [Official]
- Sandra Peggie vs NHS Fife
- Where to find Law Work Experience
- Feedback on Contract Law Problem Based Question
- Trump stonewalls over Epstein list
- law degree reading amount
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 months ago
TSR Quiz of the Week #203 (19th July 2025) - Missing Words RoundLast reply 2 months ago
16-year-olds given right to vote in next General Election [Official Thread]Last reply 4 months ago
Bank of England cuts interest rates to lowest level at 4.5%Last reply 5 months ago
[Official] US announces new tariffs on most countriesLast reply 5 months ago
Criminal offence or legitimate expression of belief?Articles for you
How The Student Room is moderated
To keep The Student Room safe for everyone, we moderate posts that are added to the site.
