SCOTUS.🚨
The Supreme Court is Likely to Uphold Presidential Immunity for Donald Trump: Analysis
“After listening to arguments at the Supreme Court, it’s clear the justices will narrowly hold the President of the United States—any president—is immune from criminal prosecution for official (not personal) acts," the Article 3 Project's Legal Analyst @mrddmia said in an official statement.
"Additionally or alternatively, the Court will reaffirm criminal statutes do not apply to the President, unless they are explicit. The Court will remand Jack Smith’s January 6th case to DC Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan for an evidentiary hearing. Her decision is immediately appealable to the DC Circuit, and the Supreme Court could take the case again before trial."
"The Court’s likely holding will also substantially affect Fani Willis’ January 6th case—and may affect Jack Smith’s presidential-records case. And the Supreme Court’s Fischer decision on obstruction will likely destroy two of Jack Smith’s four January 6th charges against Trump. Only 20% of Jack Smith’s January 6th case will remain. The case will not get tried before the election."
“Bottom line: This will become a historic win for President Trump—and the presidency and our country. This is a big step toward undoing the Democrats’ republic-ending lawfare and election interference against President Trump."
👉🏻 https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1783538524257391085?t=ZFePna-V_PrF3kMUEMcoyQ&s=19
I think it'll get remanded by to Judge Chutkan with some kind of framework as to how immunity is to be applied.
Leslie McAdoo Gordon sums it up in the last post of her live thread.
https://x.com/McAdooGordon/status/1783545932040032413
So, for example, I think ALL 9 of them think that the POTUS simply cannot be prosecuted for some official things. A motion to dismiss such a case should succeed and likely could be appealed promptly. Example: giving a pardon. Also that all 9 agree the POTUS can be prosecuted, (impeachment or not) for purely private conduct. Example: he shoots his brother-in-law.
The three liberal justices are likely to say that the POTUS can be prosecuted for official acts that are outside the "core" functions of the President. "Core" would be things like the pardon, CinC functions, etc. They seem poised to say that the district court should figure that out first in some way.
Four of the conservative justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) appear to be prepared to rule that the POTUS has immunity on the criminal front just as on the civil front as in Fitzgerald, with campaigning being outside the scope of the immunity. They also gave hints that the district court would have to parse out the private from the public in the first instance and would likely allow a prompt appeal of that.
The remaining two conservative justices are a bit harder to read (and Thomas said so little that he could be in this group too, but my instinct tells me he's likely in the other group). Roberts seemed to have problems with both parties' positions. And ACB clearly didn't like the full scope of DJT's position. They look likely to me to go for a limited version of the immunity. Less than DJT's lawyers are asking for (full Fitzgerald type immunity), but they are definitely not going to say there is no immunity, but they don't seem comfortable with immunity only for the "core" functions either.
Remember that the district court ruled and the CofA affirmed that the POTUS has NO "immunity" once he leaves office. Strictly speaking, all 9 of them won't agree with that conceptually; they will find that the POTUS has some kind of protection. But the 3 liberals will call it something other than "immunity." Dreeban called it "an as applied Article II challenge," which they will probably go with.
The conservatives will I think - all 6 - assert that there is a broader protection. There will probably be at least two camps of what the scope is and how it functions procedurally.
So, DJT "wins" the case in the sense that a majority (and probably all the justices) will say that there is "immunity" or something like it for former Presidents and then they send the case back to Judge Chutkan with some kind of framework for applying it to this case.
I predict that the framework will be dictated by the middle - ACB and/or Roberts. They are the swing votes, their formulation will be the key to the other four getting the majority so they will have to compromise on the details.
So, if you don't look at the details and just ask the question who's for DJT and who's for the SC in a general sense, it's 6-3. Six for DJT: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB; 3 for the SC: Kagan, Sotomayor, KBJ.
Good analysis based on the questioning; however there is another possibility. All nine appear to favor some type of presidential immunity and a majority seem to favor immunity for whatever President Trump is accused of. They could unanimously hold that he is not subject to prosecution for the specific offenses charged without addressing the reason for the decision or setting rules for some unknown occurrence in the future. No one can predict what situation might be encountered by a sitting president and what action might be necessary to deal with it. We don't need a rule for everything that might happen.