The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the 1st that former President Donald Trump enjoys a certain degree of immunity from criminal prosecution in a federal case suspected of "interfering in the 2020 presidential election", and instructed lower courts to reconsider the case and determine which acts are "acts of public office" that cannot be prosecuted. Trump hailed a "big victory" that day, and his lawyers even immediately sought to postpone the sentencing sentence scheduled for next week in the New York State hush money case.
Democratic incumbent President Joseph Biden admitted on the same day that it was "unlikely" that the federal criminal case against Trump for "interfering in the 2020 presidential election" would be concluded by polling day in November. Biden instead called on the public to vote to prevent Trump from winning.
Elements of the ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court announced the results of its ruling on the 1st, and 9 justices voted, of which 6 conservative justices were in favor and the remaining 3 liberal justices were against. According to a number of foreign media, this is the first time that the Supreme Court has recognized that the president has some form of immunity from criminal prosecution.
According to the Washington Post, the ruling means that the president of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from his actions when he exercises "core constitutional powers"; presumption of immunity in respect of his "official acts"; They are not immune from criminal prosecution for their "non-official acts".
This means that Trump's "interference in the 2020 presidential election" can still be heard, but the Supreme Court did not get too involved in the details of the case, and remanded the case back to the trial court's presiding judge, Tanya Chutkan, asking the federal district judge in Washington to determine within the "broad range" set by the ruling which Trump's actions can be prosecuted and which cannot.
Justice Department Special Counsel Jake Smith filed four counts last August in connection with Trump's connection to the "Capitol riot" of Jan. 6, 2021.
According to the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump has absolute immunity from his discussions with former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, and the conduct cannot be used as a basis for incriminating Trump's crimes. According to Reuters' previous statement, Clark seems to be regarded by federal prosecutors as a co-conspirator in Trump's "interference in the 2020 presidential election case", but the Washington Post interpreted the results of the ruling on the 1st of this month that Trump's conversation with him did not constitute a subjective intent to commit a conspiracy to commit a crime.
In addition, unless the prosecution in this case can present evidence that indicting Trump would not undermine the authority and functions of the federal government, it should be assumed that Trump has immunity from his efforts to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the presidential election results at a joint session of the House and Senate on the day of the "Capitol riot."
Trump cheered
After the Supreme Court's ruling was announced, Trump posted on social media on the 1st: "This is a major victory for the mainland's constitution and democracy." ”
The Washington Post dismissed the verdict as "a clear political victory" for Trump, as it was more favorable to Trump than many expected, and would further delay Trump's "interference in the 2020 presidential election." According to the New York Times, the verdict means that the case has almost certainly been postponed beyond the November presidential election day, and if Trump wins, the federal Justice Department will almost certainly drop the case.
Trump has been asking the court to dismiss the case on the grounds of presidential immunity, but it has not been upheld by the presiding judge, Chutkan, or the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for it.
Trump petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene on Feb. 12. In the same month, the Supreme Court ruled to stay the case until the 1st of this month, when it ruled on presidential immunity.
According to the Associated Press, Trump's lawyer sent a letter to Juan Melchan, the presiding judge of another criminal lawsuit involving Trump in the New York State "hush money" case, late on the 1st, citing the Supreme Court's ruling, saying that some of the evidence previously submitted by the prosecution was related to "presidential public office" and should be excluded, so he asked Melchan to consider postponing the verdict in this case.
Trump's "hush money" can be traced back to his first presidential campaign in 2016, when he was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records. Merchan was scheduled to announce the sentencing results on the 11th.
Biden warned
U.S. President Joe Biden said on the 1st that the Supreme Court's ruling set a "dangerous precedent" and that "no one in this country is above the law, and neither can the president." He called on the American people to "rule on Trump's term" on behalf of the Supreme Court by voting in the November presidential election to prevent Trump from winning.
According to Reuters, Biden acknowledged that the Supreme Court's ruling means it is "very, very unlikely" that the public will know the final outcome of the "interference in the 2020 presidential election case" before the November election.
According to the Washington Post, the Democratic Party has been in a bad situation for several days, and after Biden did poorly in his first televised debate with Trump on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled the next day to limit prosecutors from prosecuting participants in the "Capitol riot", giving Trump a major PR victory. The impact of the ruling on the 1st of this month is not limited to Trump's criminal prosecution, but also involves those who will become presidents of the United States in the future. If Trump wins, the verdict could even put him in more power.
The New York Times emphasized that the "best option" for the Democratic Party at the moment may be to let the "interference in the 2020 presidential election" go to trial, and let the public continue to focus on Trump's alleged election sabotage by exposing the specific process of the "Capitol riot" on the same day.