President Biden has expressed strong disapproval of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant former President Donald Trump broad immunity from prosecution. Biden described the ruling as a “dangerous precedent” that undermines the rule of law. He emphasized that the decision effectively removes legal constraints on presidential power, leaving the officeholder to self-impose any limits.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, determined that a former president has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and is presumed immune for official acts, though not for unofficial acts. The case has been sent back to the trial judge to decide which of Trump’s actions were part of his official duties and thus protected from prosecution.
Biden’s remarks from the White House came shortly after the court’s decision. He reiterated that the ruling places “virtually no limits on what a president can do,” making it unlikely that Trump will face trial for his efforts to undermine the transfer of power.
“Now the American people will have to do what the court should have been willing to do, but will not… render a judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior,” Biden stated.
Biden, who is facing pressure from fellow Democrats to withdraw from his race following a lackluster performance in the recent presidential debate, did not take questions during his statement. He spoke clearly and calmly, aiming to reassure his supporters of his capability to lead. Since the debate, Biden has held several events to bolster his supporters’ confidence. He held a rally in Raleigh, N.C., and spent the weekend engaging in damage control, addressing concerns from donors and supporters.
“I didn’t have a great night,” Biden admitted to supporters at an event hosted by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy. “But I’m going to be fighting harder and going to need you with me to get it done.”
Meanwhile, the federal case against Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election remains in limbo. Trump claims he should have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions related to his presidency. The Supreme Court, after initially refusing to expedite the case, has now taken it up following a lower court’s rejection of Trump’s immunity claim.
The justices will hear oral arguments to determine whether Trump should have blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. This untested constitutional question has significant implications, and the Supreme Court’s decision to review it underscores its importance.
Special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the federal case against Trump, had previously requested the Supreme Court’s intervention. The court’s delay in addressing the matter has benefited Trump, but a resolution is inevitable.
The question of whether a president with absolute immunity could order extreme actions, such as assassinating a rival, has been raised. Trump’s lawyer had to concede that such actions would not violate the notion of absolute immunity being pressed.
Supreme Court justices are not bound by the same recusal rules as other federal judges, which has led to controversy. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, has not recused himself from major disputes related to the January 6 insurrection or efforts to overturn the 2020 election, despite his wife’s involvement in those efforts.
None of the three justices appointed by Trump—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—have recused themselves from cases related to Trump. However, they have ruled against him in some instances, such as dismissing his challenge to the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court’s handling of Trump’s immunity claim has been slow, raising concerns about the timing of a potential resolution before the upcoming election. The court’s decision could either affirm or reject Trump’s immunity, but the process may extend beyond Election Day.
The court has moved quickly in other cases, such as the Colorado ballot dispute over whether Trump violated the “insurrectionist clause” of the 14th Amendment. However, the justices are under no obligation to expedite their decision on Trump’s immunity claim.
Trump’s lawyers argue that his efforts to overturn the election were within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties, citing the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case, which granted former President Richard Nixon immunity from civil lawsuits related to his official acts. They seek to extend this immunity to criminal prosecution.
However, the Supreme Court has previously ruled in United States v. Nixon that presidents do not have blanket immunity, forcing Nixon to comply with a criminal subpoena for White House tapes, which ultimately led to his resignation.
Trump’s lawyers also argue that his impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate constituted a form of prosecution. However, this argument is flawed, as many senators who voted to acquit him did so on the grounds that he could still face criminal prosecution after leaving office.
The founders of the United States, in breaking free from a monarchy, did not support the idea of absolute immunity for any one person. Their rhetoric and the Constitution itself do not grant the president immunity from prosecution.
Nixon’s pardon by his successor, President Gerald Ford, was intended to preempt criminal prosecution and put the Watergate scandal behind the nation. Ford and his lawyers believed that prosecution of Nixon was possible and likely, which is why the pardon was issued.
Source: NPR, CNN
