The Supreme Court seemed poised to send former President Donald Trump’s case back to the district court while laying out a new definition of immunity for presidents.
This move would further delay the federal election case and possibly push the trial date to after the November election—what Trump has long sought.
Protestors in front of the Supreme Court in Washington on April 25, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times
“Writing a rule for the ages” was how Justice Neil Gorsuch framed the case. The justices’ decision will inform the nation’s separation of powers and could lead to disruptions in other cases, like the prosecution against Trump in Georgia.
Trump’s attorney John Sauer told the justices during oral argument on April 25 that presidents should enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that fell within the outer perimeter of presidents’ official duties. He added that prosecution could only occur after impeachment and conviction by Congress.
His opponent, former Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, argued instead that while presidents didn’t enjoy that type of immunity, they could raise certain arguments in court surrounding their powers under Article II of the Constitution.
Dreeben was arguing for Special Counsel Jack Smith, who indicted Trump last year and has been prosecuting him in Washington over his activities on Jan. 6, 2021. Both the D.C. district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said Trump didn’t have criminal immunity but the Supreme Court seemed inclined to think differently.
Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be the most critical of Dreeben’s arguments and lobbed multiple questions about how much presidents could rely on the justice system not to allow politicized or abusive prosecutions. He worried that Dreeben’s view of immunity was “diluted” and seemed frustrated with Dreeben’s position, telling him that he essentially believed presidents have a form of special protection.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed the most critical of Trump’s position and argued that “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.” She also pushed back on Alito, saying: “Justice Alito went through step by step all of the mechanisms that could potentially fail. In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own, isn’t it?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, generally seen as a proponent of executive power, seemed to defend Sauer’s position by suggesting that he wasn’t trying to place the president above the law but rather was trying to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett was more critical and wondered about the possibility that criminal conduct wouldn’t be discovered until after the president left office, raising the prospect that impeachment and conviction wouldn’t occur.
Multiple experts suggested that the Court would send the case back to D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan with a more narrow conception of immunity than Trump had offered. University of Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade speculated in an X post that if the “Court is slow in deciding or demands findings of private vs official action, which themselves could be appealed, trial could be delayed past the election, and then Trump could derail case if he returns to office.”
Remanding the case could lead the lower court to pair down the indictment by excluding Trump’s official actions. The decision would likely force the Justice Department to proceed with charges concerning Trump’s private actions.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears outside the courtroom during his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City on April 23, 2024. Curtis Means-Pool/Getty Images
EXPERTS QUESTION LEGALITY OF TRUMP GAG ORDER
Former President Donald Trump must remain silent about most people involved in his Manhattan “hush money” trial to avoid being held in contempt of court.
Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s sweeping gag order bars the former president from making public statements about witnesses, jurors, prosecutors, court staff, or relatives of court staff or lawyers on the case. He can still comment on the judge and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
The order has raised constitutionality concerns over Trump’s free speech rights. And the implications, legal scholar Mike Davis said, are “so much bigger than Trump.”
Davis, who leads the Article III Project, said he’s noticed a pattern of federal officials infringing on the rights of Trump and others—particularly conservatives or non-Democrats. The result, he said, could be a courtroom-based “civil war” between Republicans and Democrats.
Still, Ohio lawyer and legal analyst Mike Allen noted that the judge is in a “tough spot.”
“He has to balance Trump’s First Amendment rights versus protecting the integrity of the criminal process,” Allen told The Epoch Times. “It’s compounded by the fact that you’ve got a former and perhaps future president of the United States. And these facts are smack-dab in the middle of a campaign.”
Trump and his attorneys have appealed against the judge’s order. But they aren’t the only ones fighting it.
New York attorney Joseph Nierman filed a lawsuit against Merchan in a New York appellate court in an effort to “ungag Trump.” Nierman holds that the gag order does not serve to protect any person’s constitutional rights, which is a must, he says, for any such order.
“If this order is allowed to stand, it will quickly expand situations where the court is entitled to issue a gag order,” he said in a video posted to social media.
Other legal scholars have questioned the fairness of blocking Trump, a presidential candidate, from criticizing prosecutors many believe to be motivated by politics.
But even if the criminal cases against the former president were meant to damage his presidential bid, they could backfire, Trump advisory board member Jason Meister noted.
“This toxic court may be successful in gagging President Trump, but it won’t be successful in gagging the millions of supporters that he has,” Meister said. “You can gag him on paper, but you’re actually amplifying his voice by doing that.”
—Janice Hisle and Samantha Flom
Constitutional scholar John Eastman in Los Angeles on April 5, 2024. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times
JOHN EASTMAN: SUSPENDED, DE-BANKED, BUT NOT SORRY
Attorney and constitutional scholar John Eastman says he has no regrets about his role in challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“No. Absolutely not,” he told The Epoch Times. “What I saw at the time raised real serious questions in my mind about the validity of the election.”
And his views haven’t changed, even in the wake of a California judge’s recent recommendation that his law license be revoked. On the contrary, the former Trump lawyer said his suspicions have since been confirmed “tenfold.”
In her ruling, California State Bar Judge Yvette Roland described Eastman as “defiant, refusing to acknowledge any impropriety whatsoever in his actions” surrounding his election lawsuits.
“His lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his misconduct is deeply troubling,” the judge wrote.
Eastman is appealing the judge’s recommendation of disbarment. In the meantime, his license has been suspended on “involuntary inactive enrollment,” preventing him from practicing law in California.
He described the ruling as “unprecedented.”
“It was initiated by hyper-partisan leftists that are trying to attack President Trump and anybody that supported him,” he said. “This is a weaponization of our judicial system, and our bar disciplinary processes that has never occurred in our history before.”
Eastman drew from evidence provided by Garland Favorito, founder of VoterGA, a nonpartisan, nonprofit election integrity group.
Favorito, an independent, discovered “thousands of ballots that were duplicated and counted multiple times,” in deep blue areas of Atlanta in violation of state law, Eastman said.
He also cited the findings of former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who investigated claims of voter fraud for that state’s legislature.
“There’s no question Wisconsin was stolen,” Eastman said, noting that the probe uncovered alleged nursing home fraud, which he said was determinative.
But that evidence, he said, is not reported by the “propaganda press,” which has upheld the narrative that the election was legitimate.
Meanwhile, Eastman and his family have been harassed and threatened by leftist activists. On top of being targeted with various acts of vandalism, “We get death threats,” he said.
The attorney said he was also de-banked by Bank of America and USAA without any explanation.
Deborah Pauly, president of Conservative Patriots of Orange County, said what the media, leftwing activists, and even some Republicans have done to Eastman and his family is “flat out evil.”
“What is happening here—not just with Dr. John Eastman, but in other cases, too—is a direct threat to our form of government,” she said. “Anyone who cares about our Constitution should be very concerned.”
—Brad Jones and Samantha Flom
BOOKMARKS
Film producer Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction has been overturned by the New York Court of Appeals, The Epoch Times’ Jessamyn Dodd reports. The Thursday (April 25) ruling cited a judge’s prejudicial handling of the #MeToo case in ordering a new trial.
Former President Donald Trump thinks he may have a shot at winning the state of New York in November, The Epoch Times’ Jack Phillips reports. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee told reporters on Thursday that he intends to “make a play” for the typically blue state.
Ohio lawmakers are negotiating across the aisle to ensure President Joe Biden appears on the state’s presidential election ballot, The Epoch Times’ Jeff Louderback reports. As it stands, a conflict between the date of the Democratic National Convention and Ohio’s deadline for parties to name their nominees means that may not happen.
Some black New Yorkers who supported Biden in 2020 say they’ll be voting differently this time around, The Epoch Times’ Juliette Fairley reports. Their change of heart comes amid soaring illegal immigration and widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the nation.
U.S. economic growth slowed to 1.6 percent in the first quarter of 2024, The Epoch Times’ Andrew Moran reports. The reading fell short of expectations and marked a 3.4 percent decline from the previous quarter.
Americans for Prosperity Action, a political action committee linked to conservative megadonor Charles Koch, spent $50.6 million on former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s failed presidential bid, The Epoch Times’ Austin Alonzo reports. The group, alongside Club for Growth Action, has now turned its attention toward U.S. Senate races.
