Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said former President Donald Trump secured a victory for special counsel Jack Smith’s request for immunity from prosecution with the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the president has immunity for “official acts” taken while in office. Turley said the 6-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a setback for Smith because lower courts must now decide whether Trump’s actions under challenge qualify for immunity. (Related: ‘Too Narrow’: Jonathan Turley slams Supreme Court for avoiding ‘fundamental issues’ in censorship case)
“The Supreme Court hasn’t upheld absolute immunity in every case, but it has said that there is absolute immunity when it comes to core constitutional powers,” Turley told America’s Newsroom co-host Dana Perino and guest co-host Bret Baier. “We’re still reviewing the ruling to see if there’s any guidance on where to draw the line. The case has been sent back to the district court, which will have to work through this conundrum to determine what in the case doesn’t qualify for those protections, but this is clearly a victory for President Trump in the sense that the special counsel, like the lower courts, was arguing that immunity wasn’t even worth worrying about here.”
clock:
‘A victory for Trump’: Jonathan Turley says Supreme Court immunity decision a blow to Jack Smith pic.twitter.com/uBQpcDslEn
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 1, 2024
“Government lawyers assured us that the court had nothing to worry about in terms of changing circumstances in this case, but that’s clearly what led to the win,” Turley continued. “The court is saying that they need to draw boundaries to protect the president, to give him some leeway. You have to think for a second about how the circumstances influenced the judge. If you want to consider the impact of leaving the president unprotected, you only have to look across the country.”
Smith was indicted in late August in Washington, D.C., against Trump on charges he tried to challenge the results of the 2020 election. (Related article: Jonathan Turley says “chilling effect” on Trump remains despite Juan Marchan partially lifting censorship)
“Manhattan was not a federal case, but it was, in the eyes of many of us, a pretty raw and blatant political prosecution,” Turley continued. “And so I think that this situation really focused the justices, as Justice Gorsuch said, to write a timeless opinion, not just for this case, but for future cases and future presidents.”
A Manhattan jury convicted Trump on May 30 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
As an independent, nonpartisan news service, all content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation is available free of charge to any legitimate news publisher with a large readership. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and affiliation with the DCNF. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
