US presidents can now deploy Navy seals to assassinate rivals, a Supreme Court justice has claimed, citing the ruling on Donald Trump’s immunity.
The Court held that presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions that fall within the scope of their official duties, meaning Trump may be able to claim presidential immunity over his actions related to the Jan 6 riots.
However, Sonia Sotomayor, one of the Supreme Court justices, argued in her dissenting summary that the decision would allow the president to use their office for “evil ends”.
She wrote: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises 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.”
Trump’s lawyers have previously claimed that a president was immune from criminal prosecution if they used a team of Navy seals to kill their political enemies – unless they were first impeached by Congress.
The Court did not explicitly address the claim, but took issue with the argument that a president could not be prosecuted without being impeached.
John Roberts, the Chief Justice and author of the Court’s opinion, noted that a president who resigned from office or otherwise evaded impeachment would “never be held accountable for his criminal acts.”
“Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a president,” he said.
“Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the constitution or the structure of our government.”Joe Biden’s campaign, who have frequently sought to paint Trump as a threat to democracy, quickly leapt on Justice Sotomayor’s claim that presidents could kill off their political rivals with impunity.
“The Supreme Court just granted Donald Trump breathtaking immunity from prosecution,” it said, in a fundraising email to supporters.
“We cannot overstate how unprecedented this ruling is.
“If Trump wins again, he’ll be even more dangerous and unhinged because he knows the courts won’t hold him back.”
6:57PM
That’s all for now
Thanks for following our live coverage as the Supreme Court ruled on Donald Trump’s immunity claim. This live blog is now closed.
6:14PM
Trump ‘has been handed keys to a dictatorship’
Joe Biden’s re-election campaign has used the Supreme Court’s ruling in a bid to spur on donations from supporters.
“We cannot overstate how unprecedented this ruling is,” one message reads. “If Trump wins again, he’ll be even more dangerous and unhinged because he knows the courts won’t hold him back.”
Quentin Fulks, the campaign’s deputy manager, told reporters that Trump had been handed “the keys to a dictatorship” and that “we have to do everything in our power to stop him.”
6:01PM
House Speaker: This is a victory for Donald Trump
Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “victory” for Donald Trump and “defeat” for the justice department.
“The Court clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts,” he said in a statement.
“This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the Constitution and common sense.”
5:58PM
Trump calls for ‘end’ of all criminal cases against him
Donald Trump has claimed that the Supreme Court’s ruling today should “end” his four criminal cases – including the “hush money” case in which he was convicted in May.
The former president wrote on his Truth Social platform:
Today’s Historic Decision by the Supreme Court should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me, including the New York Hoaxes – The Manhattan SCAM cooked up by Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, Racist New York Attorney General Tish James’ shameless ATTACK on the amazing business that I have built, and the FAKE Bergdorf’s “case.” PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
In a separate message to supporters, Trump claimed the Court had given him “absolute immunity” from criminal charges.
This is not the case. The Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for charges related to attempting to install a loyalist as attorney general to oversee him claims that the 2020 election was “rigged”.
The DC district court will decide which of the other charges fall within the scope of his official acts as president and are protected by presidential immunity.
5:53PM
Trump ‘may be entitled to presidential immunity’ over Jan 6 case
Donald Trump may be able to claim presidential immunity over his actions related to the Jan 6 riots, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The Court split 6-3 along partisan lines to rule that presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions that fall within their “core constitutional” roles, and that official acts are entitled to a “presumption of immunity”.
Trump has absolute immunity from the charge that he attempted to install a loyalist as attorney general to oversee his “rigged” election claims, the Court ruled.
A Washington, DC district court will decide which of his other charges, related to his alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, are protected from criminal prosecution.
It marks a further delay in the Jan 6 case – one of the most serious cases against the former president, with two of the four charges carrying up to 20 years in prison.
Trump hailed the ruling as a “big win for our constitution and democracy” in a message on his Truth Social platform.
5:24PM
Coney Barrett: ‘Hard to see’ how Trump has immunity for all charges
Amy Coney Barrett, the last Supreme Court justice appointed by Donald Trump, said there are charges against the Republican that likely fall outside the scope of his executive acts – and therefore presidential immunity.
She wrote in a partially-concurring opinion: “The indictment alleges that the President ‘asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing’ about election fraud claims.
“The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power.”
5:11PM
Trump has ‘absolute immunity’ for trying to promote election denier
Donald Trump has absolute immunity from the charge that he attempted to install a loyalist as attorney general to oversee his “rigged” election claims, the Court ruled.
It strikes a fatal blow at the charge that Trump attempted to appoint Jeff Clark acting attorney general as part of a conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
“The President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts ruled, noting that presidents have “unrestricted power” to remove executive officers.
“Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”
Other charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith have been sent down to the DC district court, which will decide whether they fall within the scope of presidential immunity.
Trump has a “presumption of immunity” for allegedly pressuring Mike Pence, his vice president, to refuse to certify the election results – meaning it is up to the government to rebut this.
4:50PM
Attempt to pressure Mike Pence ‘has presumption of immunity’
Donald Trump’s alleged attempts to pressure Mike Pence, then his vice president, into rejecting the results of the 2020 election are covered by a “presumption of immunity”, the Court ruled.
“Applying a criminal prohibition to the President’s conversations discussing such matters with the Vice President… may well hinder the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions,” John Roberts, the Chief Justice wrote.
“It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity.
“We therefore remand to the District Court to assess… whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
4:41PM
The argument that Trump lost
The Supreme Court did not wholeheartedly agree with arguments put forward by Donald Trump’s lawyers.
The former president’s legal team had argued that a president would need to be impeached before they could be criminally prosecuted. Notably, they said this would need to happen even if a president assassinated a political rival.
However, John Roberts, the Chief Justice, noted that a president would resigned from office or otherwise evaded impeachment would “never be held accountable for his criminal acts.”
“Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a president,” he wrote in the Court’s majority decision.
“Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the constitution or the structure of our government.”
4:35PM
Tweets and speeches ‘likely to fall within official acts’
John Roberts, the Chief Justice, noted that special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment makes a number of claims about Trump’s tweets, and a public address on Jan 6, 2021.
Public communications would generally fall with “official responsibilities”, he wrote, but conceded there were contexts when a president could speak publicly in an “unofficial capacity”:
Most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.
There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity – perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader.
To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry.
4:29PM
Analysis: A bitter blow for Joe Biden
This ruling is a bitter blow for Joe Biden, who has made the election interference case against Donald Trump a key part of his campaign, Tony Diver writes.
It requires Tanya Chutkan, the judge who first heard this case, to hold evidential hearings to effectively restart the trial by reexamining all of the Government’s charges again. One charge has been voided entirely by the Supreme Court, while others will now be fought over by lawyers for both sides.
The upshot is that the trial and verdict in this case are now likely to take place either just before the election, or after it. We don’t yet know how long the extra process will take.
But it also gives heart to Trump’s supporters, who have long argued that the “witch hunt” prosecutions against him are stretching the law to its extremes. Undecided voters who were wavering about Trump because of election interference have now been told that some of the charges may well be unlawful.
We can expect to see this ruling waved around on the campaign trail by Trump for some weeks. One of Mr Biden’s top attack lines has been severely weakened.
4:27PM
Pictured: Hectic scenes as Court hands down Trump ruling
4:21PM
Ruling lets future presidents assassinate rivals, says dissent
The Supreme Court’s ruling today will give presidents the power to assassinate rivals or stage a military coup, an associate justice warned in her dissent.
Donald Trump’s lawyers claimed, in a case ultimately decided against them in a lower court, that the president could send a team of Navy Seals to kill their political enemies without being prosecuted – unless they were first impeached by Congress.
Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent: “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.”
4:16PM
Read the full ruling – and dissents – here
4:15PM
Chief Justice: Criminal trial would distort president’s decisions
Presidents need some degree of immunity for their official acts because otherwise their decisions and judgement would be distorted by the threat of criminal trial, the Court ruled.
John Roberts, the Chief Justice, cited a 1982 case against Richard Nixon which established that the president had immunity from civil cases.
“The danger is akin to, indeed greater than, what led us to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from civil damages liability,” he wrote.
“Although the President might be exposed to fewer criminal prosecutions than the range of civil damages suits that might be brought by various plaintiffs, the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent.
“Potential criminal liability, and the peculiar public opprobrium that attaches to criminal proceedings, are plainly more likely to distort Presidential decision making than the potential payment of civil damages.”
4:09PM
‘The Court has let down the guardrails of the law’
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned in her dissent that the ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground” by granting immunity to the government’s “most powerful official”.
“That core principle has long prevented our Nation from devolving into despotism,” she wrote.
“Yet the Court now opts to let down the guardrails of the law for one extremely powerful category of citizen: any future President who has the will to flout Congress’s established boundaries.”
4:05PM
Pictured: Protesters throng outside Supreme Court
4:04PM
‘This will reshape the presidency’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the Court’s decision was gravely misguided in her dissent, warning that it “makes a mockery” of core constitutional principles.
“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” she wrote.
“It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”
4:02PM
How did the court vote?
The court split along partisan lines, voting 6-3 in favour of the principles having some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution.
John Roberts, the Chief Justice, wrote the opinion of the court, while Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion and Justice Coney Barrett concurred in part.
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson wrote dissenting opinions.
3:59PM
Chief Justice: No president is above the law
John Roberts, the Chief Justice, wrote in the opinion of the court that no president “is above the law” – but could not be prosecuted for “exercising his core constitutional powers”.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.
But Congress may not criminalise the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.
And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.
The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
3:56PM
Trump hails ‘big win’ after Supreme Court decision
Donald Trump has hailed the ruling as a “big win for our constitution and democracy” that will see his appeal heard again, Tony Diver writes.
In a post on Truth Social minutes after it was published, the former president said: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
The Supreme Court, which has had a conservative majority since Trump’s first administration, has issued a number of recent rulings that sided with Republicans, including overturning a ban on bump-stock rifles.
Trump’s argument that he is immune to prosecution was viewed as unlikely to succeed when it was first brought to court in Washington in April. The Supreme Court’s partial support is a big win for the former president.
3:47PM
Welcome
The Supreme Court has issued its ruling on Donald Trump’s immunity case, deciding that presidents are entitled to criminal immunity for their official acts.
The development is good news for the former president, whose case will now be remanded to a lower court to decide which of his actions – related to allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election – will be deemed “official”.
The post Trump immunity trial: Trump ruling ‘allows president to assassinate rivals with Navy Seals’ appeared first on The Telegraph.
