Supreme Court: Trump immune from prosecution for 'core' acts as president
Jul 1, 2024
auto_awesome
Law professor Kim Wahle and NPR editor Domenico Montanaro discuss the Supreme Court ruling granting Trump immunity for 'core' acts as president. They explore the impact on election interference cases, presidential immunity definition, and implications for future presidents and legal proceedings.
Presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, but not for unofficial acts.
Ruling will impact federal election interference cases by requiring distinction between official and unofficial presidential actions.
Deep dives
Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity
The Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump and future presidents have absolute immunity for certain official acts. The court's decision outlined that while presidents are entitled to a presumption of immunity for official acts, they do not have immunity for unofficial acts. This ruling has significant implications for cases involving federal election interference, leading to more detailed hearings to distinguish between official and unofficial presidential actions.
Impact on ongoing legal cases
The ruling affects the Justice Department's case against Trump regarding his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. It allows for immunity not only in dismissing counts but also regarding the actual evidence presented. This creates a complex scenario for prosecutors to navigate, requiring them to review evidence and distinguish between immune and non-immune aspects. The ruling also influences the case in Fulton County, Georgia, involving election interference, leading to a thorough examination of actions deemed official or unofficial.
Implications and controversies of the Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court's decision raises concerns about the extent of immunity enjoyed by presidents and the challenges it poses for accountability. The ruling sets a broad scope for official acts, creating a potential chilling effect on holding presidents accountable for their actions. Justice Sotomayor's dissent highlights the risk of unchecked presidential power, envisioning scenarios where presidents could engage in unlawful activities with immunity. The decision's impact on upcoming legal proceedings and political implications for the 2024 presidential campaign reflect the ongoing debates around presidential immunity and legal accountability.
For this episode of Trump's Trials, All Things Considered host Ailsa Chang speaks with University of Baltimore law professor Kim Wahle and later, NPR senior editor and political correspondent Domenico Montanaro.
In a 6-to-3 decision, along ideological lines, the Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for their core constitutional powers, and are entitled to a presumption of immunity for other official acts. But they also ruled that presidents do not have immunity for unofficial acts. The decision will affect the federal election interference case and the Georgia election interference case.
Topics include: - Supreme Court immunity decision - Federal election interference case - Georgia election interference case