SCOTUS Rules Ex-Presidents Have Immunity on Official Acts

Plus: Influencin’ Ain’t Easy

In Today’s BRIGHT

SCOTUS Rules Ex-Presidents Have Immunity on Official Acts
More Evidence of Hunter Biden Leveraging Father’s Influence
Influencin’ Ain’t Easy
Transformation Tuesday

SCOTUS Rules Ex-Presidents Have Immunity on Official Acts

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has significant immunity from prosecution for official acts performed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. Fox News reported that the case was sent back to a lower court, leaving unresolved whether Trump is immune from prosecution for actions related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

More from Fox News:

Justice Samuel Alito questioned the repercussions of charging a former president. 

"Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible nullity after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent," Alito asked. 

"Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail," he said. 

Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden, asked if the "potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?" 

"If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes. I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country," she said.

This decision arose from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s involvement in the January 6th Capitol protest and alleged interference in the 2020 election.

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley wrote, “The decision today also reminds citizens that it is more important to get these questions answered right than fast. For all of the criticism of Judge Cannon in Florida for holding hearings and considering arguments, this is why it is important to give serious and sufficient attention to these questions. Judge Chutkan was praised for her speed in supporting Smith's effort to try Trump before the election. She was wrong as was the D.C. Circuit. I do not blame them in an area with good arguments on both sides. However, speed should not be the measure of performance for the courts.”

In an address on Monday, Biden criticized the court, saying, “This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America. Each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. But today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent.”

The Daily Wire noted, “Biden’s claim is false, the Supreme Court ruling made clear that there are limits of what a president can do legally, specifically immunity only applies for official actions that fall within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities so long as they are ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.’”

RELATED: Too Clever By Half: Justice Jackson’s Suggested Path Forward for Jack Smith Could Lead to Another Reversal (Jonathan Turley)