{"id":1651,"date":"2024-07-03T21:16:54","date_gmt":"2024-07-03T21:16:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/supreme-court-grants-immunity-in-trumps-2020-election-interference-case-justia-news-july-3-2024\/"},"modified":"2024-07-03T21:16:54","modified_gmt":"2024-07-03T21:16:54","slug":"supreme-court-grants-immunity-in-trumps-2020-election-interference-case-justia-news-july-3-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/supreme-court-grants-immunity-in-trumps-2020-election-interference-case-justia-news-july-3-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Grants Immunity in Trump&#8217;s 2020 Election Interference Case \u2014 Justia News \u2014 July 3, 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div itemprop=\"articleBody\">\n<p>On July 1, 2024, the United States Supreme Court granted former President Donald J. Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution related to any Executive Branch official conduct.<\/p>\n<p><em>Trump v. United States<\/em> concerns the alleged interference of the November 2020 election. Former President Trump was indicted on four counts; the indictment alleged that Trump conspired to overturn the election by knowingly spreading false claims of election fraud. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of presidential immunity. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion, ruling that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n<p>The U.S. Supreme Court held that \u201cthe 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.\u201d The Supreme Court cited the constitutional structure of separated powers as the basis for this ruling.<\/p>\n<p>The Court looked to the \u201cFramers\u2019 design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, our precedent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and our criminal cases where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents.\u201d After looking at precedent, including <em>Nixon v. Fitzgerald<\/em> and <em>United States v.<\/em> <em>Burr<\/em>, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that \u201cwe conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitates at least a <em>presumptive<\/em> immunity from criminal prosecution for a President\u2019s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.\u201d The Court looked to <em>Clinton v. Jones<\/em> to confirm that there is no immunity for a President\u2019s unofficial acts. \u201cThe separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President\u2019s unofficial acts.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Further, the Court provided guidance as to how to separate a President\u2019s official conduct from unofficial conduct. \u201c[C]ourts may not inquire into the President\u2019s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.\u201d The Court also highlighted that \u201ccourts [may not] deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.\u201d Finally, the Court clarified that \u201cimmunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts in full, while Justice Barrett joined except as to Part III-C of the opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Kagan and Justice Jackson joined. Justice Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Additional Reading<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/legal\/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\">US Supreme Court rules Trump has broad immunity from prosecution<\/a>, <em>Reuters<\/em> (July 1, 2024)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/603\/23-939\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\"><em>Trump v. United States<\/em>, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)<\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>Photo Credit: <\/strong>Jonah Elkowitz \/ Shutterstock.com<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><script>(function(d, s, id) {\n            var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];\n            if (d.getElementById(id)) return;\n            js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;\n            js.src=\"https:\/\/connect.facebook.net\/en_US\/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.11&appId=1639788792774312&autoLogAppEvents=1\";\n            fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);\n        }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));<\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On July 1, 2024, the United States Supreme Court granted former President Donald J. Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution related to any Executive Branch official conduct. Trump [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1652,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[294,143,642,1150,613,1778,2326,309,310,533,963],"class_list":["post-1651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-case","tag-court","tag-election","tag-grants","tag-immunity","tag-interference","tag-july","tag-justia","tag-news","tag-supreme","tag-trumps"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1651","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1651"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1651\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1652"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}