Trump v. United States (2024)
 | This article documents a recent court ruling. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (July 2024) |
| Trump v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 25, 2024 Decided July 1, 2024 | |
| Full case name | Donald J. Trump v. United States |
| Docket no. | 23-939 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Trump, No. 23-cr-257 (D.D.C., Dec. 1., 2023) (immunity memorandum opinion) United States v. Trump, No. 23-3190 (D.C. Cir., Dec. 8., 2023) (gag order) |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. | |
| Holding | |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh; Barrett (except Part III–C) |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | Barrett (in part) |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson |
| Dissent | Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. II | |
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Business and personal 45th President of the United States Tenure Impeachments Prosecutions Interactions involving Russia
 |
||
.jpg)
Trump v. United States is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's official acts – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate, such as the pardon or veto power. The case extends from an ongoing federal trial to determine whether Donald Trump, president at the time, and others engaged in election interference during the 2020 election, including events during the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. It was regarded as the first time a case concerning criminal prosecution for official acts of a President was brought before the Supreme Court.[1]
On July 1, 2024, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that Trump had absolute immunity for acts he committed as President within his constitutional purview, presumptive immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.[1][2] The decision also provides the same immunity to all other former presidents. However, it declined to rule on the scope of immunity for official acts, instead vacating the appellate decision and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Prior legal history[edit]
In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court held that the president is immune from civil suit for money damages in regards to official acts. The Court clarified in Clinton v. Jones (1997) that the president is liable for civil damages for actions committed prior to assuming the presidency. The Supreme Court cases United States v. Nixon (1974) and Trump v. Vance (2020) limit the president's privilege within the judicial process; in Vance, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the president is not "categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding".[3]
Three separate civil lawsuits (later consolidated in Thompson v. Trump) against Donald Trump filed by several Congresspersons and Capitol police officers sought damages for Trump's actions from the United States Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Trump asserted presidential immunity for that case. In February 2022, District Court for the District of Columbia judge Amit Mehta rejected former president Donald Trump's claims of immunity in reference to the January 6 Capitol attack, allowing the civil trials to proceed.[3] The D.C. Court of Appeals upheld Mehta's opinion in a unanimous decision in December 2023. However, the ruling also stated that Trump may argue the immunity question later in the civil trial.[4] Trump opted not to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.[5]
Background[edit]
By March 2022, the Department of Justice began an investigation into then-President Donald Trump's actions from the general election in November 2020 and during the United States Capitol attack on January 6, 2021.[6] Attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee the investigation into Trump in both the January 6 events and the handling of classified documents after his presidency.[7] Under federal district judge Tanya S. Chutkan for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a grand jury indicted Trump on four charges released on August 1, 2023.[8]
Among other legal actions, lawyers for Trump requested the dismissal of those charges in October 2023 based on presidential immunity. Attorney John Lauro argued that Trump's claims of electoral irregularities and voter fraud were "efforts to ensure election integrity", a responsibility of the president. According to Lauro, Trump's attempts to validate his claims through the Department of Justice and the fake electors plot cannot be criminally prosecuted as "official duties" as president.[9] Federal prosecutors asserted that Trump's claims of presidential immunity were not supported by the Constitution or legal precedent.[10]
Lower court history[edit]
On December 1, 2023, judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump's claims of presidential immunity.[11] Trump appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 7, seeking to pause the case;[12] Prosecutor Smith sought to bypass the appeals court, requesting that the Supreme Court decide the issue of presidential immunity directly and urging the Court to rule swiftly.[13][14] The Supreme Court opted not to hear the case in an order issued on December 22, 2023, returning the case to be heard to completion by the D.C. Circuit.[15]
The appeals court ruled on February 6, 2024, that Trump did not have presidential immunity. The unanimous three-judge panel stated that the public interest in holding presidents liable "outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action", and that allowing for presidential immunity would be an "unbounded authority to commit crimes".[16]
United States Supreme Court[edit]
On February 12, 2024, Trump appealed to the United States Supreme Court to request a stay of the 2020 election interference trial while he sought an en banc hearing from the D.C. Circuit Court.[17] In response, Smith filed his own brief on February 14, 2024, urging the Supreme Court to deny Trump's request and citing the urgency of the pending 2024 presidential election. Smith also requested that if the Supreme Court took the case, to treat Trump's request as a petition for writ of certiorari, and put the case on an expedited schedule.[18]
On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, later setting arguments for April 25. The court also maintained the stay of the trial until their decision was made.[19]
Oral arguments[edit]
Oral arguments were held on April 25, 2024.[20] Trump's attorney D. John Sauer argued that if structured as an official act, to be charged for selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, accepting a bribe, ordering the military to stage a coup to retain power, or ordering a political assassination, the president must be successfully impeached and removed from Congress first, owing to immunity. Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel, argued that there are appropriate safeguards to assure that a president could not be prosecuted for most acts done while in their official capacity.[21] Journalists observing the arguments reported that the court rejected Trump's claim of having complete absolute immunity, with some line drawn between public acts performed as presidential duties and covered by immunity, and private acts that would not be. At the same time, the conservative justices appeared to believe it necessary to review whether the specific indictments against Trump fell into public or private actions, and that sending the case back to lower courts to make this determination prior to the jury trial would be an appropriate action, which may make it less likely for the trial to occur prior to the 2024 presidential election.[20]
Ruling[edit]
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision vacating the decision from the Court of Appeals and holding that presidents had immunity from criminal prosecution for some official acts conducted under their core constitutional authority as president, but did not have immunity for any private acts and some official acts.[22] Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, holding that presidents could expect absolute immunity for acts related to key powers granted under the Constitution, such as commanding the military, issuing pardons, overseeing foreign relations, managing immigration, and appointing judges. Roberts delineated the scope of absolute immunity when the president's acts fell outside of his core constitutional powers, writing that absolute immunity did not extend to "conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress".[23] Roberts wrote that other official acts may be prosecuted, provided that prosecutors demonstrate that such charges would not threaten the power and function of the executive branch. Unofficial acts would not enjoy any immunity from criminal prosecution.[24] Presidential acts that are determined to be immune from prosecution would also be excluded from introduction as evidence in the prosecution of other acts. The court declined to dismiss the indictment against Trump. On specific acts, the majority ruled that Trump's alleged efforts to leverage the Department of Justice in producing alternate slates of electors could not be prosecuted, while remanding decisions on immunity related to Trump's alleged pressuring of the Vice President, state officials, and private individuals to lower courts. The court also directed lower courts to examine the scope of evidence that could be utilized in the charges against Trump, such as his public comments.[24][25]
In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas questioned the legality of the special counsel appointment, writing, "If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution".[26]
In a concurring opinion, Justice Barrett agreed in granting presidential immunity for the core constitutional powers of a president. She would apply a differing standard on other official acts, by first reviewing whether a criminal statute could apply to a president's official act and then whether it would interfere with a president's constitutional authority. Due to the president's lack of authority over institutions like state legislatures, Barrett did not view the president as having any immunity in his actions towards them. Barrett also opposed the exclusion of immune, official acts as evidence by prosecutors.[24][27]
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote that granting immunity from prosecution would reshape the institution of the Presidency and risk permitting criminal conduct by presidents. Sotomayor said that the majority opinion would effectively expand what may be considered official acts beyond their core duties, depriving prosecutors of an effective means of bringing charges. She wrote that the ruling on presidential immunity was more expansive than the founders would have recognized. Roberts responded to the dissent, stating that the majority opinion was a more narrow ruling than Sotomayor had described.[28][24][23]
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson wrote that the ruling on presidential immunity would have detrimental practical consequences, removing incentives against presidential abuse of power.[28]
Reactions[edit]
Initial reactions[edit]
Trump's claims for "absolute immunity" have been rejected by most political commentators and two lower courts. In a unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the court stated that if Trump's theory of constitutional authority were accepted, it would "collapse our system of separated powers" and put a president above the law.[29]
Charlie Savage of the The New York Times wrote that Trump's immunity claim challenged "a hallmark of American-style democracy: its suspicion of concentrated power." Further stating that "rather than a presidency at least theoretically checked by law, the country would be ruled by presidents who could openly commit official crimes with impunity, so long as enough allied lawmakers remained sufficiently loyal to block any impeachment."[30]
Writing for Politico, former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori wrote that Trump's claims were "ridiculous," criticized the Supreme Court for not dismissing them immediately and thus potentially delaying Trump's criminal trials until after the 2024 United States presidential election, and criticized the court for "issuing transparently political rulings that are clearly aligned with the political priorities of the Republican Party."[31]
Reactions to oral arguments[edit]
Following oral arguments on April 25, reactions to the Supreme Court seemingly entertaining some form of presidential immunity for Trump was overwhelmingly negative from a variety of historians, journalists, commentators, political scientists, and constitutional scholars. Many referred to Trump's arguments as those of a "king"; heavily criticized conservative justices for seemingly expressing more concern for preventing hypothetical future prosecutions of presidents; accused court conservatives for appearing unconcerned and giving serious thought as to whether assassinations, bribes, and military coups were protected "official" acts; accused court conservatives of being pro-Trump and misinterpreting the Constitution; and accused the court of being on the cusp of losing all remaining legitimacy.[32]
Particular criticism was raised towards Justice Samuel Alito, who asked during the oral arguments, "Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility 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, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?"[33] Journalists stated that in the history of the United States, the transfer of presidental power had been peaceful save for the events of January 6, making Alito's question a means to treat Trump as a new normal.[33][34][35] Other criticism was levied at court conservatives seemingly abandoning their professed belief in originalism that was used to overturn the right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) to create a basis of presidential immunity that does not exist in the Constitution.[36]
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin responded to oral arguments by saying that "they should move the Supreme Court over to the RNC headquarters, because they're acting like a bunch of partisan operatives."[37] In an interview with Meet the Press, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell stated that he did not believe presidents should be immune from prosecution for actions committed in office.[38]
Reactions to the ruling[edit]
Former President Trump called the decision a "big win for our constitution and democracy"; his legal team expressed agreement and believed that the ruling would affect the result of the classified documents case.[39]
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the decision "an assault on American democracy" and claimed that she would file articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court justices, but did not specify which.[40][41]
Quentin Fulks, the principal deputy campaign manager of Joe Biden's 2024 presidential campaign, claimed that the ruling "handed Donald Trump the keys to a dictatorship".[42] Other officials of the Biden campaign expressed dismay over the ruling as well, but the president did not give his reaction.[43]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ a b Hurley, Lawrence (July 1, 2024). "Supreme Court provides win to Trump, ruling he has immunity for many acts in election interference indictment". NBC News. Retrieved July 1, 2024.
- ^ Fisher, Joe (2024-07-01). "Supreme Court rules Trump has partial immunity for official acts only". United Press International. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
- ^ a b Liptak, Adam (February 28, 2024). "Trump's Claim That He Can't Be Prosecuted Collides With Precedents". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 1, 2024. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
- ^ Gregorian, Dareh; Barnes, Daniel (December 1, 2023). "Federal appeals court finds Trump not entitled to presidential immunity in Jan. 6 civil cases — for now". NBC News. Archived from the original on March 2, 2024. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
- ^ Hurley, Lawrence (February 16, 2024). "Trump opts against Supreme Court appeal on civil immunity claim over Jan. 6 lawsuits". NBC News. Archived from the original on March 2, 2024. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
- ^ Feuer, Alan; Benner, Katie; Haberman, Maggie (March 30, 2022). "Justice Dept. Widens Jan. 6 Inquiry to Range of Pro-Trump Figures". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 4, 2022. Retrieved August 1, 2023.
- ^ Thrush, Glenn; Savage, Charlie; Haberman, Maggie; Feuer, Alan (November 18, 2022). "Garland Names Special Counsel for Trump Inquiries". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 26, 2023. Retrieved August 1, 2023.
- ^ Richards, Zoe (August 2, 2023). "Who is Tanya Chutkan, the judge assigned to Trump's election case?". NBC News. Archived from the original on August 6, 2023. Retrieved August 7, 2023.
- ^ Feuer, Alan; Savage, Charlie (October 5, 2023). "Trump Seeks Dismissal of Federal Election Case, Claiming Immunity". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 29, 2024. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
- ^ Feuer, Alan (October 19, 2023). "Federal Prosecutors Reject Trump's Immunity Claims in Election Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 1, 2024. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
- ^ Feuer, Alan (December 1, 2023). "Federal Judge Rejects Trump's Immunity Claims in Election Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 15, 2024. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
- ^ Feuer, Alan (December 7, 2023). "Trump Seeks Freeze of Election Case as He Appeals Immunity Ruling". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 1, 2024. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
- ^ Liptak, Adam; Feuer, Alan (December 11, 2023). "Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Is Immune From Prosecution". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 29, 2024. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
- ^ Feuer, Alan (December 10, 2023). "Prosecutors Ask Judge to Deny Trump's Request to Freeze Election Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 1, 2024. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
- ^ Hurley, Lawrence (December 22, 2023). "Supreme Court sidesteps decision on Trump presidential immunity claim in federal election interference case". NBC News. Retrieved December 22, 2023.
- ^ Tucker, Eric; Richer, Alanna Durkin (February 6, 2024). "Trump is not immune from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case, US appeals court says". Associated Press News. Archived from the original on February 6, 2024. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
- ^ Sherman, Mark (February 12, 2024). "Trump asks Supreme Court to put off his election interference trial, claiming immunity". Associated Press News. Archived from the original on March 2, 2024. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
- ^ Dwyer, Devin; Mallin, Alexander; Faulders, Katherine (February 14, 2024). "Special counsel urges Supreme Court to deny Trump's request for delay in immunity case". ABC News. Archived from the original on March 2, 2024. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (February 28, 2024). "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump's Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 28, 2024. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
- ^ a b Hurley, Lawrence; Reilly, Ryan J. (April 25, 2024). "Supreme Court signals further delay in Trump election interference case as it weighs immunity claims". NBC News. Archived from the original on April 25, 2024. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
- ^ Kruzel, John; Chung, Andrew (April 25, 2024). "US Supreme Court justices in Trump case lean toward some level of immunity". Reuters. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
- ^ "US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts". Reuters. July 1, 2024.
- ^ a b "Supreme Court rules for broad presidential immunity in Donald Trump election subversion case". Courthouse News. July 1, 2024.
- ^ a b c d "Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution". SCOTUSblog. July 1, 2024.
- ^ "Supreme Court Says Trump Has Some Immunity, Delaying Trial". Bloomberg Law. July 1, 2024.
- ^ "Justice Thomas just gifted Judge Cannon a reason to blow up Trump's Mar-a-Lago prosecution, another bad sign for Jack Smith". Law and Crime. July 1, 2024.
- ^ "Barrett, Sotomayor unite on criminal evidence portion of Trump immunity decision". Axios. July 1, 2024.
- ^ a b "Sotomayor says immunity ruling makes a president 'king above the law'". The Guardian. July 1, 2024.
- ^ Dwyer, Devin (April 24, 2024). "Supreme Court to take up Trump's claim of 'absolute immunity' from criminal prosecution". ABC News. Archived from the original on April 24, 2024. Retrieved April 24, 2024.
- ^ Savage, Charlie (April 24, 2024). "Trump's Immunity Claim Joins His Plans to Increase Executive Power". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on April 24, 2024. Retrieved April 24, 2024.
- ^ Khardori, Ankush (April 24, 2024). "How to Know If the Supreme Court Is in the Tank for Trump". Politico. Archived from the original on April 24, 2024. Retrieved April 24, 2024.
- ^
- Bouie, Jamelle (April 26, 2024). "This Whole King Trump Thing Is Getting Awfully Literal". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
Donald Trump's claim that he has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy: that no man is above the law. More astonishing than the former president's claim to immunity, however, is the fact that the Supreme Court took the case in the first place ... In other words, however the Supreme Court rules, it has egregiously abused its power.
- Glasser, Susan B. (April 26, 2024). "King Donald's Day at the Supreme Court". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on April 25, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
It says everything about this Supreme Court—a radical right-wing bench that Trump reshaped with his appointments—that several conservative Justices hardly seemed bothered by this absolutist vision of the Presidency. And yet, notably, I did not hear any of them specifically defend Trump's indefensible conduct or the tremendous overreach recommended by his lawyer; instead, they invoked fears of unwarranted prosecutions against other former Presidents—not this one, they insisted somewhat sanctimoniously, but unnamed others.
- Huppke, Rex (April 26, 2024). "Trump's Supreme Court immunity arguments make me wish Americans were immune to con artists". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
- Levin, Bess (April 27, 2024). "Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Argues Presidents Must Be Allowed to Commit Federal Crimes or Democracy as We Know It Will Be Over". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 27, 2024.
- Liptak, Adam (April 26, 2024). "Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump's Immunity in Unexpected Direction". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
Instead, members of the court's conservative majority treated Mr. Trump's assertion that he could not face charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election as a weighty and difficult question. They did so, said Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, by averting their eyes from Mr. Trump's conduct ... The conservative justices did not seem concerned that Mr. Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, said his client was free during his presidency to commit lawless acts, subject to prosecution only after impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate.
- Rana, Aziz (April 26, 2024). "The Constitution Won't Save Us From Trump". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
- Serwer, Adam (April 26, 2024). "The Trumpification of the Supreme Court". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
The conservative justices have shown they are ready to sacrifice any law or principle to save the former president.
- Suk Gersen, Jeannie (April 26, 2024). "The Supreme Court Appears Poised to Protect the Presidency—and Donald Trump". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
- Tannehill, Brynn (April 26, 2024). "The Court Just Sealed Everyone's Fate, Including Its Own". The New Republic. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 27, 2024.
- The Times Editorial Board (April 25, 2024). "Editorial: Only dictators have immunity from criminal acts while in power". The Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on April 25, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
- Totenberg, Nina (April 26, 2024). "Trump's immunity arguments and the experiences of the justices who might support it". NPR. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
- Vladeck, Steve (April 26, 2024). "Opinion: In Trump's immunity case, John Roberts has quite a mess in front of him". CNN. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
But the one thing that seems most clear coming out of Thursday's argument is that the answer — and the broader legacy of the Roberts court — will ultimately be up to him.
- Wegman, Jesse (April 26, 2024). "Trump's Immunity Case Was Settled More Than 200 Years Ago". New York Times. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
The right-wing justices seemed thoroughly uninterested in the case before them, which involves a violent insurrection that was led by a sitting president who is seeking to return to office in a matter of months. Instead, they spent the morning and early afternoon appearing to be more worried that prosecuting Mr. Trump could risk future malicious prosecutions of former presidents by their political rivals.
- Zachary, Basu (April 26, 2024). "SCOTUS probes assassinations and coups in Trump immunity hearing". Axios. Archived from the original on April 27, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
- Zirin, James D. (April 27, 2024). "Will the Supreme Court crown King Donald?". The Hill. Archived from the original on April 27, 2024. Retrieved April 27, 2024.
- Bouie, Jamelle (April 26, 2024). "This Whole King Trump Thing Is Getting Awfully Literal". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
- ^ a b Tomasky, Michael (April 26, 2024). "Samuel Alito's Resentment Goes Full Tilt on a Black Day for the Court". The New Republic. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 27, 2024.
- ^ Bouie, Jamielle (April 27, 2024). "Justice Alito Is Holding Trump to a Different Standard". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 27, 2024. Retrieved April 27, 2024.
- ^ Levin, Bess (April 25, 2024). "Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Argues Presidents Must Be Allowed to Commit Federal Crimes or Democracy as We Know It Will Be Over". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 27, 2024.
- ^ Gerstein, Josh (April 27, 2024). "Trump immunity fight turns Supreme Court textualists topsy-turvy". Politico. Archived from the original on April 27, 2024. Retrieved April 27, 2024.
- ^ Timotija, Filip (April 26, 2024). "Raskin: Supreme Court should be moved 'over to the RNC headquarters'". The Hill. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
- ^ Marquez, Alexandra (April 26, 2024). "Mitch McConnell says presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution". NBC News. Archived from the original on April 25, 2024. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
- ^ Holmes, Kristen; Reid, Paula (July 1, 2024). "Trump calls immunity ruling a "big win" as his legal team says decision could also help him in other cases". CNN.
- ^ Shen, Michelle (July 1, 2024). "AOC plans to file articles of impeachment". CNN.
- ^ Levien, Simon (July 1, 2024). "Supreme Court Gives Trump Substantial Immunity From Prosecution". The New York Times.
- ^ Levien, Simon (July 1, 2024). "Supreme Court Gives Trump Substantial Immunity From Prosecution". The New York Times.
- ^ Carvajal, Nicki; Alvarez, Priscilla (July 1, 2024). "Biden campaign says Supreme Court immunity decision hands Trump "the keys to a dictatorship"". CNN.
External links[edit]
- Garvey, Todd (March 4, 2024). Presidential Immunity, Criminal Liability, and the Impeachment Judgment Clause (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 3–4. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
- Case docket for United States v. Donald Trump, 23A745, (SCOTUS); SCOTUS writ of certiorari
- ScotusBlog case files: Trump v. United States
- SCOTUS oral arguments audio
- SCOTUS oral arguments transcript
- SCOTUS opinion
Legal affairs of Donald Trump | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
