To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Demonstrators protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on July 1, 2024 in Washington, D.C.
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," warned Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates...
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines on Monday that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while he was in office, a decision that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned makes any occupant of the Oval Office "a king above the law."
Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that Trump "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
But Sotomayor countered in her dissent that the majority distorted the concept of core constitutional powers "beyond any recognizable bounds," effectively granting Trump the sweeping immunity he demanded as he faces charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," the justice added. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
The New York Timesnoted that the high court "has remanded the case to the federal district court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which former President Trump has been charged—which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity and which are official ones he undertook as president."
Earlier:
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule Monday on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
But the high court's delay in handing down its decision has already "helped the former president in his effort to avoid trial before the November 5 election," Reutersnoted Sunday, leading to accusations that the court's right-wing supermajority has essentially intervened in the presidential contest on Trump's behalf.
It's been more than four months since the court agreed to take up the case, and more than two months since oral arguments. Trump nominated three of the justices who currently sit on the Supreme Court.
"By not issuing a decision before the debate, the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have in effect granted Donald Trump the immunity from trial he seeks—at least through the election," attorney Norm Eisen and Mike Podhorzer of the Defend Democracy Project said in a statement after yet another week passed without a decision in the closely watched case.
"By agreeing to take up the presidential immunity case at all, and then piling on delays, MAGA justices on the court, like the deeply conflicted Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, have used this case to interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election," Eisen and Podhorzer continued. "By stalling so long that a trial is now unlikely, the justices have already succeeded in effectively giving Trump immunity regardless of the content of their ruling."
The immunity decision is one of four expected on Monday, with the rulings set to be released beginning at around 10:00 am ET.
"It's long overdue and frankly outrageous that the Supreme Court has dragged their feet and delayed Trump's January 6th trial for months," Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote on social media. "The court has no excuse for the lack of urgency on such a crucial issue."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history."
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the election subversion charges against Trump last year, has urged the Supreme Court to reject the former president's sweeping claim that he should be "absolutely immune from prosecution" for actions he took as president.
"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former president, and all presidents from the founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," Smith wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court in April.
NBC Newsreported ahead of Monday's ruling that "based on the oral arguments, it appeared likely the court would conclude that there could be some conduct alleged in the indictment that is subject to immunity."
"The justices could set a new test for determining what official acts receive immunity and then send it back to lower courts to determine how that affects Trump's indictment," the outlet added.
In an amicus brief, a group of constitutional law experts rejected the notion that Trump should enjoy immunity from prosecution for official acts, writing that the former president's claims "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history," the experts wrote.
| The world is a pretty dark place right now. Economic inequality off the charts. The climate emergency. Supreme Court corruption in the U.S. and corporate capture worldwide. Democracy in many nations coming apart at the seams. Fascism threatens. It’s enough to make you wish for some powerful being to come along and save us. But the truth is this: no heroes are coming to save us. The only path to real and progressive change is when well-informed, well-intentioned people—fed up with being kicked around by the rich, the powerful, and the wicked—get organized and fight for the better world we all deserve. That’s why we created Common Dreams. We cover the issues that corporate media never will and lift up voices others would rather keep silent. But this people-powered media model can only survive with the support of readers like you. Can you join with us and donate right now to Common Dreams’ Mid-Year Campaign? |
This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates...
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines on Monday that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while he was in office, a decision that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned makes any occupant of the Oval Office "a king above the law."
Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that Trump "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
But Sotomayor countered in her dissent that the majority distorted the concept of core constitutional powers "beyond any recognizable bounds," effectively granting Trump the sweeping immunity he demanded as he faces charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," the justice added. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
The New York Timesnoted that the high court "has remanded the case to the federal district court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which former President Trump has been charged—which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity and which are official ones he undertook as president."
Earlier:
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule Monday on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
But the high court's delay in handing down its decision has already "helped the former president in his effort to avoid trial before the November 5 election," Reutersnoted Sunday, leading to accusations that the court's right-wing supermajority has essentially intervened in the presidential contest on Trump's behalf.
It's been more than four months since the court agreed to take up the case, and more than two months since oral arguments. Trump nominated three of the justices who currently sit on the Supreme Court.
"By not issuing a decision before the debate, the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have in effect granted Donald Trump the immunity from trial he seeks—at least through the election," attorney Norm Eisen and Mike Podhorzer of the Defend Democracy Project said in a statement after yet another week passed without a decision in the closely watched case.
"By agreeing to take up the presidential immunity case at all, and then piling on delays, MAGA justices on the court, like the deeply conflicted Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, have used this case to interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election," Eisen and Podhorzer continued. "By stalling so long that a trial is now unlikely, the justices have already succeeded in effectively giving Trump immunity regardless of the content of their ruling."
The immunity decision is one of four expected on Monday, with the rulings set to be released beginning at around 10:00 am ET.
"It's long overdue and frankly outrageous that the Supreme Court has dragged their feet and delayed Trump's January 6th trial for months," Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote on social media. "The court has no excuse for the lack of urgency on such a crucial issue."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history."
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the election subversion charges against Trump last year, has urged the Supreme Court to reject the former president's sweeping claim that he should be "absolutely immune from prosecution" for actions he took as president.
"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former president, and all presidents from the founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," Smith wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court in April.
NBC Newsreported ahead of Monday's ruling that "based on the oral arguments, it appeared likely the court would conclude that there could be some conduct alleged in the indictment that is subject to immunity."
"The justices could set a new test for determining what official acts receive immunity and then send it back to lower courts to determine how that affects Trump's indictment," the outlet added.
In an amicus brief, a group of constitutional law experts rejected the notion that Trump should enjoy immunity from prosecution for official acts, writing that the former president's claims "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history," the experts wrote.
This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates...
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines on Monday that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while he was in office, a decision that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned makes any occupant of the Oval Office "a king above the law."
Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that Trump "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
But Sotomayor countered in her dissent that the majority distorted the concept of core constitutional powers "beyond any recognizable bounds," effectively granting Trump the sweeping immunity he demanded as he faces charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," the justice added. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
The New York Timesnoted that the high court "has remanded the case to the federal district court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which former President Trump has been charged—which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity and which are official ones he undertook as president."
Earlier:
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule Monday on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
But the high court's delay in handing down its decision has already "helped the former president in his effort to avoid trial before the November 5 election," Reutersnoted Sunday, leading to accusations that the court's right-wing supermajority has essentially intervened in the presidential contest on Trump's behalf.
It's been more than four months since the court agreed to take up the case, and more than two months since oral arguments. Trump nominated three of the justices who currently sit on the Supreme Court.
"By not issuing a decision before the debate, the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have in effect granted Donald Trump the immunity from trial he seeks—at least through the election," attorney Norm Eisen and Mike Podhorzer of the Defend Democracy Project said in a statement after yet another week passed without a decision in the closely watched case.
"By agreeing to take up the presidential immunity case at all, and then piling on delays, MAGA justices on the court, like the deeply conflicted Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, have used this case to interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election," Eisen and Podhorzer continued. "By stalling so long that a trial is now unlikely, the justices have already succeeded in effectively giving Trump immunity regardless of the content of their ruling."
The immunity decision is one of four expected on Monday, with the rulings set to be released beginning at around 10:00 am ET.
"It's long overdue and frankly outrageous that the Supreme Court has dragged their feet and delayed Trump's January 6th trial for months," Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote on social media. "The court has no excuse for the lack of urgency on such a crucial issue."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history."
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the election subversion charges against Trump last year, has urged the Supreme Court to reject the former president's sweeping claim that he should be "absolutely immune from prosecution" for actions he took as president.
"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former president, and all presidents from the founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," Smith wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court in April.
NBC Newsreported ahead of Monday's ruling that "based on the oral arguments, it appeared likely the court would conclude that there could be some conduct alleged in the indictment that is subject to immunity."
"The justices could set a new test for determining what official acts receive immunity and then send it back to lower courts to determine how that affects Trump's indictment," the outlet added.
In an amicus brief, a group of constitutional law experts rejected the notion that Trump should enjoy immunity from prosecution for official acts, writing that the former president's claims "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history," the experts wrote.