Trump v. United States (2024)

In this article, we are going to delve into the topic of Trump v. United States (2024) and how it has impacted different areas of society. Since its emergence, Trump v. United States (2024) has captured the attention of experts and fans alike, generating debates and controversies around its implications. Over the years, Trump v. United States (2024) has evolved and adapted to the changes of the modern world, influencing everything from politics and economics to popular culture and entertainment. Through this analysis, we will explore various aspects related to Trump v. United States (2024), to understand its importance and significance today.

This article is about the federal case dealing with presidential immunity. For the issue of the special master in the classified documents case, see Trump v. United States (2022). For the federal and state prosecutions, see Indictments against Donald Trump.
Trump v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 25, 2024
Full case nameDonald J. Trump v. United States
Docket no.23-939
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Trump, No. 23-cr-257 (D.D.C., Dec. 1., 2023) (immunity memorandum opinion)

United States v. Trump, No. 23-3190 (D.C. Cir., Dec. 8., 2023) (gag order)
United States v. Trump, No. 23-624 (2023) (certiorari before judgment)

United States v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir., Feb 6, 2024) (immunity)
Questions presented
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
This article is part of
a series about
Donald Trump
Business and personal
45th President of the United States
Tenure
Policies
Appointments
Presidential campaigns
Impeachments
Prosecutions
Interactions involving Russia
COVID-19 pandemic

Donald Trump's signature

Seal of the President of the United States

Trump v. United States is a pending U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court will determine whether, and to what extent, presidential immunity from criminal prosecution exists. The case extends from an ongoing federal trial to determine whether Donald Trump, president at the time, and others engaged in election interference during the 2020 election, including events during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Prior legal history

Main article: Presidential immunity in the United States

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court held that the president is immune from prosecution in civil cases in regards to official acts. The Court clarified in Clinton v. Jones (1997) that the president is liable for civil damages for actions committed prior to assuming the presidency. The Supreme Court cases United States v. Nixon (1974) and Trump v. Vance (2020) limit the president's privilege within the judicial process; in Trump v. Vance, chief justice John Roberts wrote that the president is not "categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding".

Three separate civil lawsuits (later consolidated in Thompson v. Trump) against Donald Trump filed by several Congresspersons and Capitol police officers sought damages for Trump's actions from the United States Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Trump asserted presidential immunity for that case. In February 2022, District Court for the District of Columbia judge Amit Mehta rejected former president Donald Trump's claims of immunity in reference to the January 6 Capitol attack, allowing the civil trials to proceed. The D.C. Court of Appeals upheld Mehta's opinion in a unanimous decision in December 2023. However, the ruling also stated that Trump may argue the immunity question later in the civil trial. Trump opted not to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

Background

Main article: Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)

By March 2022, the Department of Justice began an investigation into then-President Donald Trump's actions from the general election in November 2020 and during the United States Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special council to oversee the investigation into Trump in both the January 6 events and the handling of classified documents after his presidency. Under federal district judge Tanya S. Chutkan for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a grand jury indicted Trump on four charges released on August 1, 2023.

Among other legal actions, lawyers for Trump requested the dismissal of those charges in October 2023 based on presidential immunity. Attorney John Lauro argued that Trump's claims of electoral irregularities and voter fraud were "efforts to ensure election integrity", a responsibility of the president. According to Lauro, Trump's attempts to validate his claims through the Department of Justice and the fake electors plot cannot be criminally prosecuted as "official duties" as president. Federal prosecutors asserted that Trump's claims of presidential immunity were not supported by the Constitution or legal precedent.

Lower court history

On December 1, 2023, judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump's claims of presidential immunity. Trump appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 7, seeking to pause the case; Prosecutor Smith sought to bypass the appeals court, requesting that the Supreme Court decide the issue of presidential immunity directly and urging the Court to rule swiftly. The Supreme Court opted not to hear the case in an order issued on December 22, 2023, returning the case to be heard to completion by the D.C. circuit.

The appeals court ruled on February 6, 2024, that Trump did not have presidential immunity. The unanimous three-judge panel stated that the public interest in holding presidents liable "outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action", and that allowing for presidential immunity would be an "unbounded authority to commit crimes".

United States Supreme Court

On February 12, 2024, Trump appealed to the United States Supreme Court to request a stay of the 2020 election interference trial while he sought an en banc hearing from the D.C. Circuit Court. In response, Smith filed his own brief on February 14, 2024, urging the Supreme Court to deny Trump's request and citing the urgency of the pending 2024 presidential election. Smith also requested that if the Supreme Court took the case, to treat Trump's request as a petition for writ of certiorari, and put the case on an expedited schedule.

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, later setting arguments for April 25. The court also maintained the stay of the trial until their decision was made.

On April 22, 2024, Liz Cheney, vice-chair of the January 6 hearings committee, published an essay in The New York Times urging the Supreme Court of the United States to quickly decide on presidential immunity to allow the legal proceedings of former President Trump to overturn the 2020 election to proceed in a timely manner.

Oral arguments

Oral arguments were held on April 25, 2024. Trump's attorney D. John Sauer argued that if structured as an official act, the president could not be charged for selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, accepting a bribe, ordering the military to stage a coup to retain power, or ordering a political assassination. Sauer argued that owing to absolute immunity, the president must be successfully impeached and removed from Congress first. Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel, argued that there are appropriate safeguards to assure that a president could not be prosecuted for most acts done while in their official capacity. Journalists observing the arguments reported that the court downplayed Trump's claim of having complete absolute immunity, with some line drawn between public acts performed as presidential duties and covered by immunity, and private acts that would not be. At the same time, the conservative justices appeared to believe it necessary to review whether the specific indictments against Trump fell into public or private actions, and that sending the case back to lower courts to make this determination would be an appropriate action. Should the court decide on this route, the main trial would likely be delayed past the 2024 election.

Reactions

Trump's claims for "absolute immunity" have been rejected by most political commentators and two lower courts. In a unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the court stated that if Trump's theory of constitutional authority were accepted, it would "collapse our system of separated powers" and put a president above the law.

Charlie Savage of the The New York Times wrote that Trump's immunity claim challenged "a hallmark of American-style democracy: its suspicion of concentrated power." Further stating that "rather than a presidency at least theoretically checked by law, the country would be ruled by presidents who could openly commit official crimes with impunity, so long as enough allied lawmakers remained sufficiently loyal to block any impeachment."

Writing for Politico, former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori wrote that Trump's claims were "ridiculous," criticized the Supreme Court for not dismissing them immediately and thus potentially delaying Trump's criminal trials until after the 2024 United States presidential election, and criticized the court for "issuing transparently political rulings that are clearly aligned with the political priorities of the Republican Party."

Following oral arguments on April 25, reactions to the Supreme Court seemingly entertaining some form of presidential immunity for Trump was overwhelmingly negative from a variety of journalists, commentators, political scientists, and constitutional scholars. Many referred to Trump's arguments as those of a "king"; heavily criticized conservative justices for seemingly expressing more concern for preventing hypothetical future prosecutions of presidents; accused court conservatives for appearing unconcerned and giving serious thought as to whether assassinations, bribes, and military coups were protected "official" acts; accused court conservatives of being pro-Trump and misinterpreting the Constitution; and accused the court of being on the cusp of losing all remaining legitimacy. Democratic Rep. Jaime Raskin responded to oral arguments by saying that "they should move the Supreme Court over to the RNC headquarters, because they’re acting like a bunch of partisan operatives." In an interview with Meet the Press, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell stated that he didn't believe presidents should be immune from prosecution for actions committed in office.

Notes

  1. ^ Attributed to multiple sources:

References

  1. ^ a b Liptak, Adam (February 28, 2024). "Trump's Claim That He Can't Be Prosecuted Collides With Precedents". The New York Times. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  2. ^ Gregorian, Dareh; Barnes, Daniel (December 1, 2023). "Federal appeals court finds Trump not entitled to presidential immunity in Jan. 6 civil cases — for now". NBC News. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
  3. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (February 16, 2024). "Trump opts against Supreme Court appeal on civil immunity claim over Jan. 6 lawsuits". NBC News. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
  4. ^ Feuer, Alan; Benner, Katie; Haberman, Maggie (March 30, 2022). "Justice Dept. Widens Jan. 6 Inquiry to Range of Pro-Trump Figures". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 4, 2022. Retrieved August 1, 2023.
  5. ^ Thrush, Glenn; Savage, Charlie; Haberman, Maggie; Feuer, Alan (November 18, 2022). "Garland Names Special Counsel for Trump Inquiries". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 26, 2023. Retrieved August 1, 2023.
  6. ^ Richards, Zoe (August 2, 2023). "Who is Tanya Chutkan, the judge assigned to Trump's election case?". NBC News. Archived from the original on August 6, 2023. Retrieved August 7, 2023.
  7. ^ Feuer, Alan; Savage, Charlie (October 5, 2023). "Trump Seeks Dismissal of Federal Election Case, Claiming Immunity". The New York Times. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  8. ^ Feuer, Alan (October 19, 2023). "Federal Prosecutors Reject Trump's Immunity Claims in Election Case". The New York Times. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  9. ^ Feuer, Alan (December 1, 2023). "Federal Judge Rejects Trump's Immunity Claims in Election Case". The New York Times. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  10. ^ Feuer, Alan (December 7, 2023). "Trump Seeks Freeze of Election Case as He Appeals Immunity Ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  11. ^ Liptak, Adam; Feuer, Alan (December 11, 2023). "Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Is Immune From Prosecution". The New York Times. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  12. ^ Feuer, Alan (December 10, 2023). "Prosecutors Ask Judge to Deny Trump's Request to Freeze Election Case". The New York Times. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  13. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (December 22, 2023). "Supreme Court sidesteps decision on Trump presidential immunity claim in federal election interference case". NBC News. Retrieved December 22, 2023.
  14. ^ Tucker, Eric; Richer, Alanna Durkin (February 6, 2024). "Trump is not immune from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case, US appeals court says". Associated Press. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
  15. ^ Sherman, Mark (February 12, 2024). "Trump asks Supreme Court to put off his election interference trial, claiming immunity". Associated Press. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
  16. ^ Dwyer, Devin; Mallin, Alexander; Faulders, Katherine (February 14, 2024). "Special counsel urges Supreme Court to deny Trump's request for delay in immunity case". ABC News. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
  17. ^ Liptak, Adam (February 28, 2024). "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump's Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April". The New York Times. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  18. ^ Cheney, Liz (April 22, 2024). "Liz Cheney: The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump's Immunity Claim". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 22, 2024. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
  19. ^ a b Hurley, Lawrence; Reilly, Ryan J. (April 25, 2024). "Supreme Court signals further delay in Trump election interference case as it weighs immunity claims". NBC News. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
  20. ^ Kruzel, John; Chung, Andrew (April 25, 2024). "US Supreme Court justices in Trump case lean toward some level of immunity". Reuters. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
  21. ^ Dwyer, Devin (April 24, 2024). "Supreme Court to take up Trump's claim of 'absolute immunity' from criminal prosecution". ABC News. Retrieved April 24, 2024.
  22. ^ Savage, Charlie (April 24, 2024). "Trump's Immunity Claim Joins His Plans to Increase Executive Power". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 24, 2024.
  23. ^ Khardori, Ankush (April 24, 2024). "How to Know If the Supreme Court Is in the Tank for Trump". Politico. Retrieved April 24, 2024.
  24. ^ Liptak, Adam (April 26, 2024). "Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump's Immunity in Unexpected Direction". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 26, 2024. Instead, members of the court's conservative majority treated Mr. Trump's assertion that he could not face charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election as a weighty and difficult question. They did so, said Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, by averting their eyes from Mr. Trump's conduct ... The conservative justices did not seem concerned that Mr. Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, said his client was free during his presidency to commit lawless acts, subject to prosecution only after impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate.
  25. ^ Wegman, Jesse (April 26, 2024). "Trump's Immunity Case Was Settled More Than 200 Years Ago". New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2024. The right-wing justices seemed thoroughly uninterested in the case before them, which involves a violent insurrection that was led by a sitting president who is seeking to return to office in a matter of months. Instead, they spent the morning and early afternoon appearing to be more worried that prosecuting Mr. Trump could risk future malicious prosecutions of former presidents by their political rivals.
  26. ^ Bouie, Jamelle (April 26, 2024). "This Whole King Trump Thing Is Getting Awfully Literal". The New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2024. Donald Trump's claim that he has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy: that no man is above the law. More astonishing than the former president's claim to immunity, however, is the fact that the Supreme Court took the case in the first place ... In other words, however the Supreme Court rules, it has egregiously abused its power.
  27. ^ Rana, Aziz (April 26, 2024). "The Constitution Won't Save Us From Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
  28. ^ Serwer, Adam (April 26, 2024). "The Trumpification of the Supreme Court". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 26, 2024. The conservative justices have shown they are ready to sacrifice any law or principle to save the former president.
  29. ^ Aftergut, Dennis (April 26, 2024). "SCOTUS majority abandons conservative principles to mount bizarre defense of Trump's immunity claim". Salon. Retrieved April 26, 2024. Yesterday's message from the rightwing justices of the Supreme Court, particularly the male justices, was shocking to any believer in true, conservative jurisprudence and the rule of law. Their questions at the oral argument in the Donald Trump immunity case signaled strongly that they really care more about enhancing presidential power than preserving democracy, and to that end, lean toward giving Trump the gift of even more delay.
  30. ^ Glasser, Susan B. (April 26, 2024). "King Donald's Day at the Supreme Court". The New Yorker. Retrieved April 26, 2024. It says everything about this Supreme Court—a radical right-wing bench that Trump reshaped with his appointments—that several conservative Justices hardly seemed bothered by this absolutist vision of the Presidency. And yet, notably, I did not hear any of them specifically defend Trump's indefensible conduct or the tremendous overreach recommended by his lawyer; instead, they invoked fears of unwarranted prosecutions against other former Presidents—not this one, they insisted somewhat sanctimoniously, but unnamed others.
  31. ^ Suk Gersen, Jeannie (April 26, 2024). "The Supreme Court Appears Poised to Protect the Presidency—and Donald Trump". The New Yorker. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
  32. ^ Totenberg, Nina (April 26, 2024). "Trump's immunity arguments and the experiences of the justices who might support it". NPR. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
  33. ^ The Times Editorial Board (April 25, 2024). "Editorial: Only dictators have immunity from criminal acts while in power". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
  34. ^ Huppke, Rex (April 26, 2024). "Trump's Supreme Court immunity arguments make me wish Americans were immune to con artists". USA Today. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
  35. ^ Zachary, Basu (April 26, 2024). "SCOTUS probes assassinations and coups in Trump immunity hearing". Axios. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
  36. ^ Vladeck, Steve (April 26, 2024). "Opinion: In Trump's immunity case, John Roberts has quite a mess in front of him". CNN. Retrieved April 26, 2024. But the one thing that seems most clear coming out of Thursday's argument is that the answer — and the broader legacy of the Roberts court — will ultimately be up to him.
  37. ^ Timotija, Filip (April 26, 2024). "Raskin: Supreme Court should be moved 'over to the RNC headquarters'". The Hill. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
  38. ^ Marquez, Alexandra (April 26, 2024). "Mitch McConnell says presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution". NBC News. Retrieved April 26, 2024.

External links

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia