SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in support of Republicans Doug Mastriano for governor of Pennsylvania and Mehmet Oz for U.S. Senate at Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre on September 3, 2022
(Photo: Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images)
Win for Trump as US Supreme Court Punts on Immunity Question
"There are no good, pro-Constitution, pro-democracy, pro-best interests of American society or the reputation of the Supreme Court reasons for taking this position," said one commentator.
Dec 22, 2023
Donald Trump scored at least a temporary legal victory on Friday when the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not intervene—at least for now—to determine whether or not the former president enjoys full immunity for alleged misconduct during his time in office, including actions related to a federal indictment for his role in the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Trump, had requested that the nation's highest tribunal bypass a lower appeals court, telling the justices the case "presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy" that must be answered expeditiously.
The question at the center of the case is "whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin," said Smith.
Trump previously appealed District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling that rejected his claim of immunity. The former president's appeal suspended his criminal trial centered on allegations that Trump attempted to obstruct Congress and defraud the U.S. government when he led efforts to overturn President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.
Smith told the justices that the U.S. government recognized that asking them to rule on Trump immunity was "an extraordinary request."
"This is an extraordinary case," he reasoned.
Political commentator David Rothkopf said the high court's decision "only helps Trump and hurts the country."
Smith and critics of Trump have pointed out that delaying Trump's criminal case could push the trial on his conduct past the 2024 election, potentially allowing him to order the charges be dropped if he wins the presidential race.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan said the court's refusal to intervene provides the latest proof that the Supreme Court will not "protect our rights and our democracy, and stand up to Trump should he win again next year and go full fascist."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Donald Trump scored at least a temporary legal victory on Friday when the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not intervene—at least for now—to determine whether or not the former president enjoys full immunity for alleged misconduct during his time in office, including actions related to a federal indictment for his role in the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Trump, had requested that the nation's highest tribunal bypass a lower appeals court, telling the justices the case "presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy" that must be answered expeditiously.
The question at the center of the case is "whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin," said Smith.
Trump previously appealed District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling that rejected his claim of immunity. The former president's appeal suspended his criminal trial centered on allegations that Trump attempted to obstruct Congress and defraud the U.S. government when he led efforts to overturn President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.
Smith told the justices that the U.S. government recognized that asking them to rule on Trump immunity was "an extraordinary request."
"This is an extraordinary case," he reasoned.
Political commentator David Rothkopf said the high court's decision "only helps Trump and hurts the country."
Smith and critics of Trump have pointed out that delaying Trump's criminal case could push the trial on his conduct past the 2024 election, potentially allowing him to order the charges be dropped if he wins the presidential race.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan said the court's refusal to intervene provides the latest proof that the Supreme Court will not "protect our rights and our democracy, and stand up to Trump should he win again next year and go full fascist."
From Your Site Articles
- Special Counsel Asks SCOTUS to Rule on Trump Jan. 6 Case ›
- Trump Channels Nixon With 'Presidential Immunity' Defense in January 6 Case ›
- Jack Smith Seeks Ban on 'Political Attacks,' Disinformation at Trump Trial ›
- If Elected, Trump Threatens to Weaponize DOJ Against Biden ›
- Trump Claims Presidents 'Have Absolute Immunity,' But Judges Seem Skeptical ›
- 'Citizen Trump': Appeals Court Says No Immunity in Jan. 6 Case ›
- Trump Appeals Presidential Immunity Claim to US Supreme Court ›
- As Supreme Court Takes Trump Immunity Case, Clarence Thomas Urged to Recuse ›
- Opinion | The Supreme Court Is Doing Everything It Can to Get Trump Back in Office | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | The Supreme Court Is Not Going to Save Us From Donald Trump | Common Dreams ›
- Supreme Court Urged to Reject 'Intolerable and Dangerous' Trump Immunity Claim ›
- Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | Right-Wing Justices Plays Along With Farcical Ruse on Trump Immunity | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | The Supreme Court Justices Colluding With Trump to 'Catch and Kill' Insurrection Case | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | Trump and O.J.: Delusional Psychos in Court Put America on Trial | Common Dreams ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Donald Trump scored at least a temporary legal victory on Friday when the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not intervene—at least for now—to determine whether or not the former president enjoys full immunity for alleged misconduct during his time in office, including actions related to a federal indictment for his role in the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Trump, had requested that the nation's highest tribunal bypass a lower appeals court, telling the justices the case "presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy" that must be answered expeditiously.
The question at the center of the case is "whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin," said Smith.
Trump previously appealed District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling that rejected his claim of immunity. The former president's appeal suspended his criminal trial centered on allegations that Trump attempted to obstruct Congress and defraud the U.S. government when he led efforts to overturn President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.
Smith told the justices that the U.S. government recognized that asking them to rule on Trump immunity was "an extraordinary request."
"This is an extraordinary case," he reasoned.
Political commentator David Rothkopf said the high court's decision "only helps Trump and hurts the country."
Smith and critics of Trump have pointed out that delaying Trump's criminal case could push the trial on his conduct past the 2024 election, potentially allowing him to order the charges be dropped if he wins the presidential race.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan said the court's refusal to intervene provides the latest proof that the Supreme Court will not "protect our rights and our democracy, and stand up to Trump should he win again next year and go full fascist."
From Your Site Articles
- Special Counsel Asks SCOTUS to Rule on Trump Jan. 6 Case ›
- Trump Channels Nixon With 'Presidential Immunity' Defense in January 6 Case ›
- Jack Smith Seeks Ban on 'Political Attacks,' Disinformation at Trump Trial ›
- If Elected, Trump Threatens to Weaponize DOJ Against Biden ›
- Trump Claims Presidents 'Have Absolute Immunity,' But Judges Seem Skeptical ›
- 'Citizen Trump': Appeals Court Says No Immunity in Jan. 6 Case ›
- Trump Appeals Presidential Immunity Claim to US Supreme Court ›
- As Supreme Court Takes Trump Immunity Case, Clarence Thomas Urged to Recuse ›
- Opinion | The Supreme Court Is Doing Everything It Can to Get Trump Back in Office | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | The Supreme Court Is Not Going to Save Us From Donald Trump | Common Dreams ›
- Supreme Court Urged to Reject 'Intolerable and Dangerous' Trump Immunity Claim ›
- Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | Right-Wing Justices Plays Along With Farcical Ruse on Trump Immunity | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | The Supreme Court Justices Colluding With Trump to 'Catch and Kill' Insurrection Case | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | Trump and O.J.: Delusional Psychos in Court Put America on Trial | Common Dreams ›
Related Articles Around the Web
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.