> 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. Pp. 5–43.
I wonder if Trump's lawyers will now claim that attempting to incite an insurrection of retaining classified documents pas his term is an official act...
> "The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law... With fear for our democracy, I dissent"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
and in case it wasn't obvious, it was 6-3 decision along party lines.
I did at first too, but I've read elsewhere it was 6-3
let me try to find confirmation one way or another
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented the opinion.
that makes it sound like it was 6-3
> The justices, in a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting Trump's claim of immunity from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.
As has already been explained to you before @The_AH, chat rooms are not required to adhere to the topic of their parent site. This applies to whatever "main" chat the site may have, in addition to any other chats they have.
Okay, here's some actual good news from the decision, from the BBC page I linked earlier:
> "Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the nation’s government," they wrote.
So Trumps absurd argument that a POTUS would need to be impeached on an action before they can be prosecuted on it has no legal backing. Which we all knew of course, but good to see SCOTUS agrees.
from PDF page 96, which is page 29 of Sotomayor's dissent:
> Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. (ref removed)
> The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
> Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
> Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
Seeing a few more reactions, it seems to me like the decision is so vague that it still allows almost every potential interpretation. So in the end this is closer to the simple delay that was expected, but it does lay the groundwork for immunity in cases that matter. It does leave enough room to nullify cases like the Seal Team 6 example (in large part due to the presumptive immunity instead of absolute immunity)
So they keep all their option open, if a specific Trump immunity case comes along they can validate that if they want. But if anything else comes along they can just use whatever definition of "official act" they want or use the presumptive immunity to argue that it doesn't apply in this case
My earliest memory of a major news event I was genuinely aware of was Nixon's resignation. I understood the emotions around me at the time and shared many of them. I cannot understand how this could be the same country. It makes me so sad.
> Hurricane Beryl, which made landfall Monday on Carriacou Island, was the first Category 4 storm ever to form in the Atlantic Ocean in June.
> Prime Minister of Grenada Dickon Mitchell said Hurricane Beryl flattened Carriacou in half an hour, but so far there have been no reports of confirmed injuries or deaths.
