The basics from the ruling in Trump v. United States:
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the 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.
The short summary is that I think the Court is too deferential to the executive, that the whole thing has given Trump what he wanted in terms of delay, but the trial can continue. As I think about it, this is largely what was expected.
Some thoughts from reading the text of Robert’s majority opinion.
When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that
examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
So this sounds like Roberts is endorsing full and total separation of powers and forgetting the whole checks and balances part. The notion that nothing the president does within his consitutional powers can be prosecuted is, quite frankly, a scary proposition that invites dictatorial behaviors.
To be fair, the next paragraph seems to acquiese to some checks and balances.
Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive
and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s ab-
solute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of
his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas
where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the Presi-
dent’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Fram-
ers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, prece-
dent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and criminal cases
where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents.I would strindently note that the notion that the best way to understand presidential power in 2024 is to simply try and divine the Framer’s design (which seems to means reading the Federalist Paper) more than elides the realities of the president’s power in the now. I increasingly think that the Court analyzes our consitutional order and historical development with the acumen and knowledge of a precocious college sophmore who just discovered the Federlaist Papers and thinks they have found the Rosetta Stone of consitutional interpretation.
“the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent and plainly more likely to distort Presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages.”
Call me crazy, but I want a president to have to consider consequences, including personal ones, for actions.
The good news, such as it is, is that “As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity.”
So, the argument is going to be which acts were official and which were not. This means, in practical terms I think, that there will be more delays in this trial.
The bad news, however, is that the Court is, in my mind, giving the president immunity from any abuse of power if it can be linked to his “conclusive and preclusive” authority.
Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitu-
tional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the
alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.
Again, at first reading, this suggests that an awful lot of corrupt uses of power are immune from prosecution.
The ruling does allow the case to proceed in regard to Trump’s attempt to manipulate Pence into interfering with the EV count as well as his actions to influence state officials.
The ruling also rejects the Trump team’s argument that a president has to be impeached and removed before he can be prosecuted. In general, and again at a first read, it looks to me as if the Court has created some long-term problems in terms of allowing presidents king-like authorities that will have long-term negative consequences. I continue to reject the notion that presidents should not have to consider the consequences of their actions. Personal stakes should function as an internal check on abuse.
In terms of the trial, there is a way forward on a number of counts, but I fear that all of this delay means that there will be nothing conclusive before the election.
More, I suspect, once I have had time to digest all of this.
Update: A useful summary via NPR, Supreme Court says Trump has absolute immunity for core acts only.
