Biden Warns That Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Michael D. Shear , The New York Times; Biden Warns That Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump

"President Biden warned on Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity meant that there were “virtually no limits on what the president can do” and urged voters to prevent former President Donald J. Trump from returning to the White House freed from the constraints of the law.

“The American people must decide if they want to entrust the president once again — the presidency — to Donald Trump,” Mr. Biden said during brief remarks, “knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.”"

US Supreme Court liberals lament ruling making the president 'a king above the law'; Reuters, July 1, 2024

Will Dunham, Reuters ; US Supreme Court liberals lament ruling making the president 'a king above the law'

"The president of the United States has been elevated to the status of "a king above the law." The occupant of the White House may order assassinations of political rivals without fear of prosecution. America's leader may now be insulated from criminal consequences for whatever he or she wants to do in office.

That is what U.S. Supreme Court liberals said in dissent to Monday's landmark decision recognizing for the first time broad immunity from prosecution for former presidents."

God save us from this dishonorable court; The Washington Post, July 1, 2024

 Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; God save us from this dishonorable court

"Smith’s office is now consigned to assess the tatters in which the court’s ruling has left its prosecution and determine, like a homeowner after a tornado has touched down, what can be salvaged.

The country is now left to worry about whether Trump will ever be held accountable — and about the implications of the court’s ruling for future presidents, including, most chillingly, Trump himself.

As Jackson wrote in a separate dissent, “Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when — if ever — a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act ‘manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority,’ they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike.”

Sotomayor was similarly apocalyptic. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she closed her dissent. Both Sotomayor and Jackson abandoned the customary “respectfully” — for good reason.

God knows what a reelected Trump would do in a second term. God save us from this dishonorable court."

The Disturbing Footnote in Supreme Court’s Trump Immunity Ruling; The New Republic, July 1, 2024

Edith Olmsted, The New Republic ; The Disturbing Footnote in Supreme Court’s Trump Immunity Ruling

"While the Department of Justice has long held that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted, the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on the issue—until now. In one brief footnote of his majority opinion granting sweeping protections to the president, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed the department’s rule.

“Our decision in Clinton permitted claims alleging unofficial acts to proceed against the sitting President,” he wrote, referring to Clinton v. Jones, a civil suit brought against former President Bill Clinton over conduct from before he was president. “In the criminal context, however, the Justice Department ‘has long recognized’ that ‘the separation of powers precludes the criminal prosecution of a sitting President.’”"

The Trump Decision Reveals Deep Rot in the System; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Laurence H. Tribe, The New York Times ; The Trump Decision Reveals Deep Rot in the System

"The American people can still vote this November to reject what would be a devastating blow to the survival of government by and for the people. But whatever one believes about the likely outcome, we can and should also begin talk of amending the Constitution to repair these structural flaws. Whether Trumpism implodes later rather than sooner, we must remember that over the course of our history, we have made progress toward a “more perfect Union” only by imagining a better future and struggling to embody it in our fundamental law. Sometimes we’ve amended the Constitution after a national upheaval as convulsive as the Civil War. At other times, however, less traumatic events affecting the presidency, in particular, have prompted constitutional reform.

To repair the profound and growing problem of presidential unaccountability, we must dare to design a separate branch of government, outside the existing three, charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws."

The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

The Editorial Board , The New York Times; The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents

"As of Monday, the bedrock principle that no one is above the law has been set aside. In the very week that the nation celebrates its founding, the court undermined the reason for the American Revolution by giving presidents what one dissenting justice called a “law-free zone” in which to act, taking a step toward restoring the monarchy that the Declaration of Independence rejected."

Thomas and Alito took part in the case, despite calls for their recusal.; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Adam Liptak, The New York Times ; Thomas and Alito took part in the case, despite calls for their recusal.

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejecting calls for their disqualification, participated in the decision on the scope of former President Donald J. Trump’s immunity from prosecution.

Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices’ wives raised serious questions about their impartiality."

Supreme Court delivers big win for Trump on immunity: 5 takeaways; The Hill, July 1, 2024

REBECCA BEITSCH AND ZACH SCHONFELD , The Hill; Supreme Court delivers big win for Trump on immunity: 5 takeaways

"The majority’s decision provides a broad shield to former presidents for their conduct while in the White House."

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution; Fox News, July 1, 2024

 Brooke Singman , Brianna Herlihy, Fox News; Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority...

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, former President Trump said, "I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years, and now the courts have spoken." 

"This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll—by a lot—and we will make America great again," he said."

Historians, legal experts express dismay at Trump immunity ruling; The Roll Call, July 1, 2024

 Ryan Tarinelli, The Roll Call; Historians, legal experts express dismay at Trump immunity ruling

"Historians and legal experts warned Monday that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling opens the door to dangerous abuses of power and strikes against foundational American principles of accountability under the law...

Presidential historian and author Michael Beschloss was among those who referred to the idea that the decision cut against the intent of the nation’s founders.

“Thanks to Supreme Court today, Presidents in future will have access to far more unaccountable power than they ever have had in American history,” Beschloss posted on social media. “Founders wanted a President, not a King.”...

Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas governor who ran unsuccessfully in the GOP 2024 presidential primary, said the Supreme Court gave presidents greater control of the Justice Department. That’s because, Hutchinson argued, the decision says an “official act” that gets immunity includes threatening to fire the attorney general if he does not take an action.

“I can only imagine how this may be abused,” Hutchinson tweeted...

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a statement that the ruling “makes perfect sense to me” because core constitutional authorities must come with absolute immunity and other official acts will be determined by factual analysis.

“The Supreme Court’s dissent in this case is foolish in every way, particularly Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson’s argument that this decision allows a president to assassinate their opponent,” Graham said. “The liberal members of the Court and the Left have lost their minds when it comes to President Trump.”...

A White House official responded to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision by noting Biden has said “nobody is above the law.”

“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works,” spokesman Ian Sams said in an email. “We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down.”"

Justices 'fear for democracy' in dissent on Trump immunity; BBC News, July 1, 2024

Mike Wendling , BBC News; Justices 'fear for democracy' in dissent on Trump immunity

"Six conservative-leaning justices signed the majority opinion, but the three liberals dissented.

Led by Sonia Sotomayor, they expressed "fear for our democracy".

"Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Immune."

"Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

She was joined in her dissent by the court's two other liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan."

The Supreme Court’s disastrous Trump immunity decision, explained; Vox, July 1, 2024

Ian Millhiser, Vox; The Supreme Court’s disastrous Trump immunity decision, explained

"Trump v. United States is an astonishing opinion. It holds that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution — essentially, a license to commit crimes — so long as they use the official powers of their office to do so."