Probability the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Trump—granting former presidents immunity from prosecution—in Trump v. United States (2024) (contingent on SCOTUS issuing a ruling on this case) | 15%How does this work
Research the Present
Background Information
Trump v. United States (2024)
Trump v. United States (2024) is a U.S. Supreme Court case that revolves around the extent of presidential immunity in the United States. The case originated from three separate civil lawsuits filed against Donald Trump by Congresspersons and Capitol police officers seeking damages for his actions during the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Trump asserted presidential immunity, but lower courts rejected his claims. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, setting arguments for April 25, 2024, and maintaining a stay on the trial until their decision is made.
Influential Actors
John G. Roberts, Jr.
John G. Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States, appointed in 2005 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.
Ideological leanings:
Centrist conservative with institutionalist tendencies (from 20 observations)
John G. Roberts, Jr.'s ideological leanings are complex and cannot be easily categorized along a simple conservative-liberal spectrum. While he has often sided with the conservative bloc on issues such as voting rights, campaign finance, and religious liberty, he has also joined or authored decisions that align with more liberal positions, such as upholding the Affordable Care Act and legalizing same-sex marriage. His emphasis on judicial restraint, institutional integrity, and the importance of precedent suggests a more nuanced approach to jurisprudence that sometimes crosses ideological lines. Roberts appears to prioritize the Court's reputation and the rule of law over a consistent ideological stance.
Observation:
Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He authored the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He dissented in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), limiting the EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), expanding corporate political speech rights.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He voted to uphold the Trump administration's travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has generally favored restrictions on abortion, as seen in his votes on various cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has often sided with the conservative bloc in cases involving religious liberty.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has shown support for the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has voted to limit the use of race in college admissions, consistent with conservative views on affirmative action.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has been skeptical of broad interpretations of executive power in some cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has emphasized judicial restraint and the importance of precedent in his opinions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has supported the death penalty in his votes on capital punishment cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has often voted to enforce arbitration agreements, reflecting a pro-business stance.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has shown a commitment to the institutional integrity of the Court, often seeking to avoid highly partisan rulings.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has occasionally sided with liberal justices on issues of criminal procedure and defendants' rights.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has advocated for a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause in United States v. Lopez (2005).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has been involved in decisions that have chipped away at campaign finance regulations.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has demonstrated a pattern of deference to legislative judgments in cases involving economic regulation.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has expressed concern over the politicization of the judiciary and has defended the independence of the courts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Jurisprudential philosophy:
Pragmatic textualist with a commitment to judicial restraint and institutional integrity (from 20 observations)
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.'s jurisprudential philosophy is characterized by a commitment to judicial restraint, a respect for precedent (stare decisis), and a focus on the text of the law. He often takes a pragmatic approach that can lead to siding with either conservative or liberal justices, depending on the case. His rulings reflect a balance between conservative principles, such as a narrow interpretation of federal power, and a willingness to uphold certain expansive readings of laws when they align with his interpretation of the Constitution's text and principles. Roberts appears to prioritize the institutional integrity of the court and often seeks to avoid perceptions of the judiciary as politically driven.
Observation:
In his 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts emphasized the role of judges as umpires who apply the rules rather than make them.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act in 2012, focusing on the statute's constitutionality under Congress's taxing power.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He authored the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts dissented in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), arguing that the Constitution does not address same-sex marriage.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In King v. Burwell (2015), Roberts supported a broad interpretation of the Affordable Care Act to uphold subsidies.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has shown a tendency to favor incremental legal changes over sweeping shifts, as seen in various rulings.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts joined the majority in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which expanded political speech rights for corporations.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has often emphasized judicial restraint and the limited role of the courts in his opinions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Riley v. California (2014), protecting privacy rights in the digital age.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has demonstrated a commitment to the principle of stare decisis, often upholding precedent.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has occasionally sided with liberal justices on key cases, reflecting a pragmatic approach to jurisprudence.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his dissent in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), Roberts expressed skepticism about the broad interpretation of regulatory powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has shown a concern for the institutional integrity and public perception of the Supreme Court.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has been critical of the perceived politicization of the judiciary and has defended the independence of the courts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In criminal law, Roberts has generally taken a conservative stance but has also supported the rights of the accused in certain contexts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has advocated for a narrow reading of federal power in cases involving the Commerce Clause.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has expressed support for religious freedom, as seen in his opinions in cases like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014).
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has been cautious about expanding federal regulatory powers without clear congressional authorization.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Roberts has shown a commitment to textualism, focusing on the text of statutes and the Constitution in his interpretations.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his opinion for the court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), Roberts upheld the president's travel ban, emphasizing the executive's broad authority in matters of national security.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Brett M. Kavanaugh is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed in 2018 amidst significant controversy and public attention.
Case precedent adherence:
Generally adheres to precedent with some openness to re-evaluation (from 20 observations)
The evidence suggests that Brett M. Kavanaugh generally places a high value on adhering to case precedent, often citing it in his opinions and dissents. He has shown respect for established legal doctrines and has often joined or written majority opinions that follow precedent. However, his respect for precedent is not absolute, as he has also expressed willingness to re-evaluate or clarify existing precedents when he believes it is warranted by the Constitution or legal principles.
Observation:
In his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh stated respect for precedent is important for predictability and stability in the law.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh dissented in Garza v. Hargan, arguing against creating a new right for unauthorized immigrant minors to obtain immediate abortion on demand.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Apple Inc. v. Pepper, Kavanaugh sided with the court's liberal justices, upholding precedent related to antitrust laws affecting Apple's App Store.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During his tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court, Kavanaugh showed a pattern of adherence to Supreme Court precedents.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh joined the majority in June Medical Services v. Russo, which struck down a Louisiana abortion law, citing adherence to precedent set by Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Ramos v. Louisiana, Kavanaugh concurred with the majority to uphold the precedent that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in both federal and state courts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in McKee v. Cosby, which upheld the precedent of limited public figure doctrine in defamation cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his dissent in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc., Kavanaugh respected the precedent set by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh dissented in the net neutrality case Mozilla v. FCC, favoring the precedent set by the Supreme Court's decision in Brand X.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has expressed admiration for Chief Justice William Rehnquist's dissent in Roe v. Wade, which criticized the decision for not being grounded in the Constitution.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh's opinion in the SeaWorld v. Perez case adhered to the precedent of deferring to the expertise of administrative agencies.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the case of PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Kavanaugh's dissent argued for the adherence to the precedent of separation of powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh's majority opinion in American Legion v. American Humanist Association upheld the precedent allowing a cross-shaped war memorial on public land.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the case of Kisor v. Wilkie, Kavanaugh concurred in part, emphasizing the importance of stare decisis but also supporting the clarification of the Auer deference precedent.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh's dissent in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom showed respect for the precedent set by Employment Division v. Smith regarding religious liberties.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, Kavanaugh concurred with the decision to declare the case moot, following procedural precedent.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh's opinion in the antitrust case Ohio v. American Express Co. adhered to the precedent of the rule of reason analysis for antitrust claims.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the case of DHS v. Regents of the University of California, Kavanaugh dissented, arguing for adherence to the precedent of the Administrative Procedure Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh's opinion in the case of Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela upheld the precedent that courts cannot infer consent to class arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the case of Flowers v. Mississippi, Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion that adhered to the precedent of Batson v. Kentucky regarding racial discrimination in jury selection.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Jurisprudential philosophy:
Conservative Textualist and Originalist (from 20 observations)
Brett M. Kavanaugh's jurisprudential philosophy is characterized by a strong commitment to textualism and originalism, respect for precedent, and a conservative view on the role of the judiciary. He tends to favor a limited interpretation of federal power, is skeptical of broad agency authority, and supports executive power. His decisions often reflect a preference for clear, rule-based outcomes and a concern for the separation of powers.
Observation:
Kavanaugh has consistently shown respect for precedent, often citing the importance of stare decisis in his decisions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has a textualist approach, focusing on the ordinary meaning of the statutory language at the time of enactment.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh dissented in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, arguing for a narrow interpretation of antitrust laws based on precedent.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh emphasized his belief in an independent judiciary.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has shown skepticism towards the Chevron deference, which gives agencies authority to interpret ambiguous statutes.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, focusing on textualist arguments.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has a history of ruling in favor of executive power, as seen in his opinions during his tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh dissented in Garza v. Hargan, arguing against an undocumented immigrant minor's right to an immediate abortion.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has expressed concern over the expansion of administrative agencies' power beyond what Congress has explicitly granted.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh joined the majority in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, which limited the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In criminal law, Kavanaugh has shown a tendency to support law enforcement and prosecution, though he has also advocated for the rights of defendants in certain contexts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has argued for religious liberty and supported the presence of religious expression in the public sphere.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in Net Neutrality case, United States Telecom Association v. FCC, favoring deregulation.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has shown a commitment to originalism, interpreting the Constitution as it was understood at the time it was written.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh has been critical of the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that expands federal power.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In his opinions, he has often shown a preference for clear rules that can be consistently applied.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh joined the majority in Ramos v. Louisiana, which required unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in state criminal trials.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has expressed admiration for former Justice Anthony Kennedy, under whom he clerked and whose seat he filled, known for his swing vote in key decisions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh has been involved in decisions that protect Second Amendment rights, aligning with a conservative interpretation of gun control laws.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
He has emphasized the importance of the separation of powers and the need for courts to avoid encroaching on legislative and executive functions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Opinions on the scope of presidential privileges:
Supports broad presidential privileges (from 14 observations)
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has demonstrated through his judicial record and past writings a tendency to support broad presidential powers. During his time on the D.C. Circuit Court and his tenure on the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh has often sided with arguments that favor executive authority. His writings, including his commentary on the investigation of President Bill Clinton and his expressed views during his time in the George W. Bush administration, suggest that he believes in a strong executive branch, which would likely extend to his opinions on the scope of presidential privileges.
Observation:
In a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article, Kavanaugh argued that sitting presidents should not be subject to criminal investigations or civil suits while in office.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During his time in the George W. Bush administration, Kavanaugh wrote that the president's job is difficult enough without the distraction of civil suits and criminal investigations.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 1998 Georgetown Law Journal article, Kavanaugh suggested that Congress should consider a law exempting a president from criminal prosecution and investigation while in office.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh, in his 2018 Senate confirmation hearings, declined to directly answer whether a sitting president could be required to respond to a subpoena.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2018 Senate confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh referred to United States v. Nixon as one of the greatest moments in American judicial history, indicating respect for the decision that limited presidential privilege.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh, during his time in the Bush administration, supported the president's broad authority to issue signing statements, which interpret the meaning of statutes passed by Congress.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
As a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh dissented in a case involving the Affordable Care Act, arguing that the president might have the power to decline to enforce statutes he believes are unconstitutional.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In the 2017 PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau decision, Kavanaugh wrote that the president should have the power to fire the head of an independent agency, reflecting his view on executive authority.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh's opinions on the D.C. Circuit often emphasized a strong view of executive power, including the president's authority in national security matters.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2013 case, Kavanaugh dissented from the majority opinion that the president exceeded his authority in making recess appointments, arguing in favor of broader presidential powers in this area.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh suggested that the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the independent counsel statute, was wrongly decided, hinting at his view of limited checks on presidential power.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh has argued that the Take Care Clause of the Constitution gives the president broad discretion to decide how to enforce the laws.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2016 law review article, Kavanaugh praised the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist for pushing back on the 'imperial presidency' concept, which could imply a nuanced view on executive power.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Kavanaugh's written responses during his confirmation process indicated that he believes in a strong executive branch, but also recognizes that the president is not above the law.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, known for her conservative views and originalist approach to the Constitution, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2020.
Jurisprudential philosophy:
Originalist and Textualist (from 20 observations)
Amy Coney Barrett's jurisprudential philosophy is characterized by her commitment to originalism and textualism, as evidenced by her academic writings, public statements, and judicial decisions. She has consistently shown a respect for precedent, though she is willing to re-evaluate or limit the scope of precedents she believes are not grounded in the Constitution's original meaning. Her decisions often reflect a conservative approach to constitutional interpretation, emphasizing the limited role of the judiciary, the importance of religious freedom, and the protection of Second Amendment rights.
Observation:
Barrett has described herself as an originalist, following the judicial philosophy of her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
She has stated that the meaning of the Constitution should not change over time, aligning with originalist thought.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In her academic writing, Barrett has shown a deep respect for stare decisis, the principle of adhering to precedent.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During her confirmation hearings, Barrett emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and the limited role of the courts.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
She has expressed skepticism about the broad application of the doctrine of substantive due process.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Barrett joined the majority in 'Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo', which favored religious freedoms over COVID-19 restrictions.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In 'Fulton v. City of Philadelphia', she joined the majority in a decision supporting a Catholic agency's right to not work with same-sex couples, based on religious grounds.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Barrett dissented in 'Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc.', arguing for the re-hearing of an abortion-related case.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
She has questioned the precedent set by 'National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius', which upheld the Affordable Care Act.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Barrett has argued for the originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, suggesting a broad protection of gun rights.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In 'South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom', she voted to uphold California's COVID-19 restrictions on religious services, showing a complex approach to religious liberty cases.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
She has written about the danger of courts straying into policymaking, which should be reserved for the legislative branch.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Barrett has emphasized the importance of textualism in statutory interpretation, focusing on the text of the law rather than potential legislative intent.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In 'Cook County v. Wolf', she dissented against blocking the Trump administration's public charge rule, which would deny green cards to immigrants likely to use public benefits.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
She has shown a willingness to limit the scope of administrative agencies, in line with conservative skepticism about the administrative state.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Barrett has been critical of the Supreme Court's decision in 'King v. Burwell', which interpreted the Affordable Care Act to allow tax credits for insurance purchased on any exchange.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In 'Kanter v. Barr', she argued as a circuit judge that non-violent felons should not be barred from owning guns, demonstrating a strong commitment to Second Amendment rights.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
She has expressed the view that life tenure for Supreme Court justices helps to insulate the court from political pressures.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Barrett has been involved in decisions that have chipped away at 'Roe v. Wade' without outright overturning it, showing a cautious approach to reversing longstanding precedents.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
She has maintained that a judge must apply the law as written, not as they wish it to be, indicating a commitment to textualism and originalism.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Views on the separation of powers:
Supports strong separation of powers (from 10 observations)
Amy Coney Barrett, as a conservative jurist, has generally shown support for a strong separation of powers, which is consistent with her originalist interpretation of the Constitution. She has emphasized the importance of each branch of government staying within its constitutionally defined role. Her judicial record, including her opinions and writings, suggests that she is likely to continue to advocate for clear boundaries between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent overreach and maintain checks and balances.
Observation:
Barrett has consistently emphasized the importance of originalism and textualism in her judicial philosophy, which can imply a strict interpretation of the separation of powers as laid out in the Constitution.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In her 2017 law review article, Barrett wrote that 'the chief justice is supreme only within the judicial realm; he has no authority to supervise or regulate the other branches.'
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During her 2020 confirmation hearings, Barrett stated that 'courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.'
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In a 2019 dissent in the case of Kanter v. Barr, Barrett argued for a historical interpretation of the Second Amendment, showcasing her approach to constitutional interpretation that could affect separation of powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Barrett joined the majority in Collins v. Yellen (2021), which held that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency was unconstitutional, reflecting her views on the separation of powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), Barrett did not participate, but her mentor, Justice Scalia, whose philosophy she shares, influenced the decision that the CFPB's structure violated the separation of powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
During her tenure on the Seventh Circuit, Barrett ruled in favor of broad presidential powers in immigration cases, which may reflect her stance on the executive branch's autonomy within the separation of powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Barrett has spoken about the role of the judiciary as limited, stating that policy decisions should be left to the legislative and executive branches, respecting the separation of powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
In her academic writing, Barrett has discussed the nondelegation doctrine, which concerns Congress's power to delegate legislative authority, indicating her interest in the boundaries of separation of powers.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Observation:
Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court itself was seen by some as a test of the separation of powers, given the proximity to the 2020 presidential election and the political dynamics involved.
gpt-4-1106-preview
Research Questions
Has the Supreme Court issued any statements or provided any hints on how they might rule in the case of Trump v. United States (2024) since the announcement of considering former President Donald Trump's claims of immunity? | ||
Have there been any notable legal analyses or expert opinions published regarding the potential outcome of Trump v. United States (2024) since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case? | ||
What are the legal arguments presented by both sides in the Trump v. United States (2024) case regarding the claim of immunity for a former president? | ||
Have any legal experts or constitutional scholars provided analysis or commentary on the potential outcome of Trump v. United States (2024) based on the arguments and the current composition of the Supreme Court? | ||
Have any current Supreme Court justices made public statements regarding the scope of presidential immunity in relation to Trump v. United States (2024)? | ||
Has the Department of Justice issued any statements or legal briefs outlining their position on former presidents' immunity from prosecution in the Trump v. United States (2024) case? | ||
What is the corresponding lower court's ruling on Trump v. United States? | ||
What are some implication if this case was to be ruled in Trump's favour? | ||
How does timing of the Nov. US presidential elections impact this case? | ||
How do past decisions like Bush v. Gore (2000) set precedent for cases involving power for presidential candidates? | ||
Chosen Sources
| Website | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|
| nytimes.com | The online presence of The New York Times, an American newspaper with worldwide influence and readership. | |
| washingtonpost.com | An American daily newspaper with a focus on national politics, international affairs, and breaking news. | |
| wikipedia.org | A comprehensive, multilingual online encyclopedia collaboratively written and maintained by a community of volunteers. | |
| lawfareblog.com | A website providing analysis on hard national security choices and legal issues related to American warfare and security. | |
| theatlantic.com | An American magazine and multi-platform publisher focusing on contemporary issues, culture, politics, and international affairs. | |
| politico.com | An American political journalism organization providing news, analysis, and coverage of politics and policy. | |
| Website | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|
| scotusblog.com | A comprehensive blog dedicated to covering the United States Supreme Court's activities, decisions, and related legal developments. | |
| oyez.org | A comprehensive repository for information related to the United States Supreme Court, including case summaries, oral arguments, and opinions. | |
| supremecourt.gov | The official website of the Supreme Court of the United States. | |
| scotusblog.com | A specialized blog providing comprehensive coverage and analysis of cases before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). | |
| oyez.org | A comprehensive repository for information related to the United States Supreme Court, including case summaries, oral arguments, and opinions. | |
| supremecourt.gov | The official website of the Supreme Court of the United States. | |
| law.cornell.edu | The online legal research platform provided by Cornell Law School offering access to a comprehensive repository of U.S. legal information. | |
| justsecurity.org | An online platform that provides expert analysis on national security, international law, and defense policy. | |
Specialist Analysis:
| Website | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|
| whitehouse.gov | The official website of the White House, providing information on the current U.S. administration's policies, news, and the President's activities. | |
| justice.gov | The official website of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). | |
| uscourts.gov | The official website of the United States federal judiciary system. | |
| whitehouse.gov | The official website of the White House, providing news, policies, and information from the President of the United States' administration. | |
| justice.gov | The official website of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). | |
| archives.gov | The official online repository of the United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). | |
Articles Read
Read 26 articles from General sources, 5 articles from Official sources, and 5 articles from Specialist Analysis sources.
www.washingtonpost.com (Mar 3, 2024) - Justices are considering Donald Trump's immunity appeal amid a glut of other high-profile, impactful decisions and emergency requests · Podcast ...
www.nytimes.com (Feb 13, 2024) - Trump's lawyers urged the justices to move at a deliberate pace. “President Trump's claim that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal ...
www.nytimes.com (Mar 19, 2024) - The court will hear arguments on April 25 over whether former presidents can be prosecuted for things they did while in office.
www.salon.com (Mar 2, 2024) - The question presented in SCOTUS order was “clearly heavily negotiated” among the justices, Norm Eisen says.
www.lawfaremedia.org (Mar 25, 2024) - The Supreme Court's order to stop lower court proceedings in Trump v. U.S. raises many questions about the arcane workings of the Court's ...
www.lawfareblog.com (Mar 8, 2024) - Anderson overturned the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Donald Trump from the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It ...
www.lawfareblog.com (Feb 27, 2024) - If and when the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, the stakes will be far less momentous than many observers might assume, because the ...
www.lawfareblog.com (Feb 6, 2024) - As the days following oral arguments over Donald Trump's claims of immunity from criminal prosecution turned into weeks, a certain anxiety ...
www.usatoday.com (Feb 29, 2024) - The high court's decision to hear the case will delay his potential trial on charges he tried to steal the 2020 election.
missouriindependent.com (Mar 20, 2024) - Former President Donald Trump renewed his call to the U.S. Supreme Court to grant him near-total immunity from criminal prosecution.
www.reuters.com (Mar 19, 2024) - Donald Trump on Tuesday filed a U.S. Supreme Court brief in his bid for criminal immunity for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, ...
www.cbsnews.com (Mar 19, 2024) - The question the justices are considering is "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal ...
abcnews.go.com (Mar 19, 2024) - Trump on Tuesday formally made his case to the Supreme Court for why he should be granted sweeping presidential immunity from criminal ...
constitutioncenter.org (Mar 12, 2024) - On April 25, 2024, Supreme Court will consider former President Donald Trump's claims of immunity from conspiracy and obstruction charges ...
thehill.com (Mar 11, 2024) - It may be that only a minority of the justices favored hearing the case, with a majority voting to let stand the lower court's denial of ...
www.usatoday.com (Mar 8, 2024) - Critics say the Supreme Court slow-rolled Trump's presidential immunity appeal. Is that true and, if so, does it signal sympathy for his ...
www.washingtonpost.com (Mar 6, 2024) - The case will determine whether and how quickly former president Donald Trump faces trial in D.C. for allegedly trying to block Joe Biden's ...
thehill.com (Mar 28, 2024) - The U.S. Supreme Court is about to consider whether — and more importantly under what circumstances — a president is immune from criminal ...
www.reuters.com (Mar 6, 2024) - The U.S. Supreme Court has set April 25 as the date it will hear Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity from prosecution on charges ...
www.scotusblog.com (Feb 28, 2024) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to ...
www.newyorker.com (Mar 3, 2024) - Amy Davidson Sorkin writes on the Supreme Court's decision to hear two cases, including one on Presidential immunity, that could upend some ...
www.cnn.com (Mar 6, 2024) - The Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 25 in the blockbuster case over whether former President Donald Trump may claim immunity from ...
www.politico.com (Mar 3, 2024) - Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) railed against the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to take up Donald Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for ...
www.politico.com (Feb 28, 2024) - The justices will hear arguments in late April on whether Trump is immune from the charges. In the meantime, the case will remain frozen.
www.politico.com (Mar 11, 2024) - He's trying to use his Supreme Court appeal in one criminal case to postpone the trial in another.
www.nbcnews.com (Mar 19, 2024) - Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday told the Supreme Court he should be granted immunity for his effort to overturn the 2020 election ...
www.oyez.org (Nov 28, 2023) - A case in which the Court held that an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of ...
www.scotusblog.com (Mar 5, 2010) - Ă‚ Another poll, by ABC News and the Washington Post, recently found that eighty percent of Americans oppose the Citizens ruling, with sixty-five ...
www.supremecourt.gov (Dec 13, 2017) - Second, courts need help evaluating foreign interests so they can objectively compare them with. U.S. interests. One question that this Court ...
www.law.cornell.edu (Jun 25, 2015) - And it is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance ...
www.law.cornell.edu (Apr 5, 2021) - GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 886 F. 3d 1179, reversed and remanded. Syllabus [Syllabus] [PDF]; Opinion, Breyer [Breyer Opinion] [PDF] ...
www.justice.gov (Jan 4, 2024) - Docket Number. 23-624 ; Supreme Court Term. 2024 Term ; Filing Date. 2023-12-11 ; Type. Petition for Writ of Certiorari ; Court Level. Supreme Court.
www.justice.gov (Jan 6, 2024) - This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal ...
ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov (Dec 13, 2023) - As the D.C. Circuit recently made clear, a former President's absolute immunity would constitute “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the ...
www.justice.gov (Jan 4, 2023) - Article III empowers the federal courts to decide only “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. Art. III,. § 2, Cl. 1. An Article III case or ...
www.cadc.uscourts.gov (Mar 26, 2024) - for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Click here to browse opinions by date released, or use one of the sorting ...
General
Official
Specialist Analysis
Facts
Distilled 37 key facts from these sourced articles.
| Source | Description | Date | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|
| thehill.com | The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if a president breaks a 'generally applicable' criminal law, then that president is acting outside the scope of his duties and therefore has no immunity. | Mar 28, 2024 | |
| lawfaremedia.org | The Supreme Court's order granting certiorari included a statement that it was expressing no view on the merits of the case. | Mar 25, 2024 | |
| lawfaremedia.org | The Supreme Court issued a directive to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to 'continue withholding issuance of [its] mandate' until the Supreme Court hands down its judgment in Trump v. United States. | Mar 25, 2024 | |
| missouriindependent.com | Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the immunity question are scheduled for April 25, and federal district court proceedings have been halted until the Supreme Court issues a ruling. | Mar 20, 2024 | |
| missouriindependent.com | The National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by Montana's Steve Daines, wrote that the Supreme Court should adopt the absolute immunity standard, expressing concern that a decision otherwise would create a cycle of political prosecutions for every future president. | Mar 20, 2024 | |
| missouriindependent.com | Eighteen Republican-led states filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts and grant Trump blanket immunity from prosecution. | Mar 20, 2024 | |
| missouriindependent.com | Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Alaska Attorney General Treg R. Taylor, and Wyoming Attorney General Bridget Hill proposed a two-part test for presidential immunity that would still allow for broad immunity, arguing that very broad, but not limitless, presidential immunity is dictated by the constitutional structure. | Mar 20, 2024 | |
| cbsnews.com | The Supreme Court has previously ruled unanimously in a separate case that states cannot bar Trump from the ballot using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which could indicate a tendency to limit the application of legal restrictions on former presidents. | Mar 19, 2024 | |
| nbcnews.com | The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is considering the legal question of whether a former president enjoys presidential immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. | Mar 19, 2024 | |
| nytimes.com | Former President Donald J. Trump submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing for absolute immunity from criminal charges related to his actions during the 2020 election. | Mar 19, 2024 | |
| cbsnews.com | A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington ruled in early February that former President Donald Trump is not entitled to presidential immunity from federal prosecution for 'assertedly official acts'. | Mar 19, 2024 | |
| nbcnews.com | Prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith have argued that there is no broad immunity preventing former presidents from being prosecuted for criminal acts committed in office, and that an attempt to 'use fraudulent means to thwart the transfer of power' should not be considered an official act. | Mar 19, 2024 | |
| cbsnews.com | The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the extent of a former president's immunity from criminal prosecution by the end of June 2024. | Mar 19, 2024 | |
| cbsnews.com | The Supreme Court has agreed to review the federal appeals court's decision and is scheduled to hear arguments on April 25, with a ruling expected by the end of June. | Mar 19, 2024 | |
| nytimes.com | The Supreme Court set an expedited schedule for the case, with oral arguments taking place approximately seven weeks after the Court agreed to hear the case. | Mar 19, 2024 | |
| nbcnews.com | Donald Trump's lawyers have argued to the Supreme Court that a ruling against his claim of absolute immunity would incapacitate every future president, leaving them open to blackmail and extortion. | Mar 19, 2024 | |
| constitutioncenter.org | In Fitzgerald v. Nixon, a Supreme Court decision from 1982, Justice Lewis Powell's majority opinion stated that a former President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. | Mar 12, 2024 | |
| constitutioncenter.org | Justice Lewis Powell in Fitzgerald v. Nixon also cited Barr v. Matteo (1959) and Stump v. Sparkman (1978) to determine that the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office. | Mar 12, 2024 | |
| thehill.com | The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether former President Trump is immune from prosecution for interference in the 2020 presidential election, with oral argument in Trump v. United States set for April 22, 2024. | Mar 11, 2024 | |
| usatoday.com | The Supreme Court's framing of the issue it will address in the case suggests it may rule on whether a former President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, rather than the absolute immunity proposed by both parties. | Mar 8, 2024 | |
| usatoday.com | Legal experts disagree on whether the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case and the timing of the oral arguments indicate sympathy to Trump's argument or a desired timeline. | Mar 8, 2024 | |
| newyorker.com | The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against Trump's claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his term as President. | Mar 3, 2024 | |
| salon.com | The Supreme Court's consideration of the immunity claim is based on a legal question that has not been previously tested, which could establish guidelines for the conduct of any future president. | Mar 2, 2024 | |
| salon.com | The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the immunity claim, indicating a short-term victory for Donald Trump, who has sought to delay the criminal case against him. | Mar 2, 2024 | |
| newyorker.com | The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case Trump v. United States, which argues that former Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any allegedly 'official acts' that took place during their terms, unless they are impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate first. | Mar 2, 2024 | |
| usatoday.com | Legal experts, including former U.S. attorney Joyce White Vance, have expressed opinions that providing a president immunity for trying to steal an election 'has to be a loser' and would leave presidents unaccountable. | Feb 29, 2024 | |
| scotusblog.com | The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether and to what extent a former president is immune from prosecution for conduct that allegedly involves his official acts during his time in office. | Feb 28, 2024 | |
| scotusblog.com | The U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the charges against him on the ground of immunity from prosecution. | Feb 28, 2024 | |
| lawfareblog.com | The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a unanimous rejection of Donald Trump's argument for immunity from prosecution. | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| lawfareblog.com | The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that Donald Trump failed to point to any historical evidence or legal precedent supporting absolute immunity for a former president. | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| scotusblog.com | The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the decision to deny Donald Trump's immunity claim and rejected the argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless impeached and convicted by the Senate. | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| cbsnews.com | The Supreme Court has never before decided whether a former president is immune from criminal liability for allegedly illegal acts committed while in office. | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| nytimes.com | The Supreme Court's decision to review the lower court's rejection of the immunity defense has effectively delayed the start of Donald J. Trump's federal trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| nytimes.com | Two lower courts have previously rejected the legal theory that presidents enjoy almost total immunity from prosecution for official actions while in office. | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| npr.org | The Supreme Court's review is limited to the question of whether and to what extent a former President enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| nytimes.com | The Supreme Court's ruling on the immunity defense is expected to be issued by the end of the Supreme Court's term in June, potentially allowing the trial to start by late September or October if the ruling finds that Mr. Trump is not immune from prosecution. | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| lawfareblog.com | The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution before his trial, which could allow for a trial to take place before the November presidential election. | Feb 6, 2024 |
Key Findings
Legal Precedents
The Supreme Court's past unanimous ruling against states barring Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment suggests a tendency to limit legal restrictions on former presidents. However, legal precedents such as Fitzgerald v. Nixon (1982) and related cases have established that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from damages for official acts. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has countered this, stating that if a president violates a 'generally applicable' criminal law, it is outside the scope of official duties and does not warrant immunity. A federal appeals court panel also ruled that Trump is not immune from federal prosecution for 'assertedly official acts', and prosecutors argue there is no broad immunity for criminal acts committed in office, particularly those aimed at obstructing a peaceful transfer of power. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found no historical evidence or legal precedent supporting absolute immunity for a former president. These conflicting interpretations of presidential immunity from prosecution will likely influence the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States.
Source FactsThe D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if a president breaks a 'generally applicable' criminal law, then that president is acting outside the scope of his duties and therefore has no immunity.thehill.com | Mar 28, 2024 The Supreme Court has previously ruled unanimously in a separate case that states cannot bar Trump from the ballot using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which could indicate a tendency to limit the application of legal restrictions on former presidents.www.cbsnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington ruled in early February that former President Donald Trump is not entitled to presidential immunity from federal prosecution for 'assertedly official acts'.www.cbsnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 Prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith have argued that there is no broad immunity preventing former presidents from being prosecuted for criminal acts committed in office, and that an attempt to 'use fraudulent means to thwart the transfer of power' should not be considered an official act.www.nbcnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 In Fitzgerald v. Nixon, a Supreme Court decision from 1982, Justice Lewis Powell's majority opinion stated that a former President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.constitutioncenter.org | Mar 12, 2024 Justice Lewis Powell in Fitzgerald v. Nixon also cited Barr v. Matteo (1959) and Stump v. Sparkman (1978) to determine that the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office.constitutioncenter.org | Mar 12, 2024 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that Donald Trump failed to point to any historical evidence or legal precedent supporting absolute immunity for a former president.www.lawfareblog.com | Feb 27, 2024
Case Specifics
The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether a former president, specifically Donald Trump, is immune from prosecution for conduct related to his official acts while in office. The Court's consideration of this issue, with oral arguments scheduled for April 25, 2024, could establish legal guidelines for future presidents. The framing of the issue suggests the Court may not rule on absolute immunity, as proposed by both parties, but rather on the extent of immunity for conduct during a presidency. Lower courts, including the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, have rejected Trump's claims of immunity, and federal district court proceedings are on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision. The Court's ruling is expected by the end of June 2024. The Supreme Court has not expressed a view on the case's merits but has agreed to review the immunity claim, which has implications for the timing of Trump's criminal case.
Source FactsThe D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if a president breaks a 'generally applicable' criminal law, then that president is acting outside the scope of his duties and therefore has no immunity.thehill.com | Mar 28, 2024 The Supreme Court's order granting certiorari included a statement that it was expressing no view on the merits of the case.www.lawfaremedia.org | Mar 25, 2024 The Supreme Court issued a directive to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to 'continue withholding issuance of [its] mandate' until the Supreme Court hands down its judgment in Trump v. United States.www.lawfaremedia.org | Mar 25, 2024 Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the immunity question are scheduled for April 25, and federal district court proceedings have been halted until the Supreme Court issues a ruling.missouriindependent.com | Mar 20, 2024 Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Alaska Attorney General Treg R. Taylor, and Wyoming Attorney General Bridget Hill proposed a two-part test for presidential immunity that would still allow for broad immunity, arguing that very broad, but not limitless, presidential immunity is dictated by the constitutional structure.missouriindependent.com | Mar 20, 2024 A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington ruled in early February that former President Donald Trump is not entitled to presidential immunity from federal prosecution for 'assertedly official acts'.www.cbsnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 Prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith have argued that there is no broad immunity preventing former presidents from being prosecuted for criminal acts committed in office, and that an attempt to 'use fraudulent means to thwart the transfer of power' should not be considered an official act.www.nbcnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the extent of a former president's immunity from criminal prosecution by the end of June 2024.www.cbsnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 The Supreme Court has agreed to review the federal appeals court's decision and is scheduled to hear arguments on April 25, with a ruling expected by the end of June.www.cbsnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 The Supreme Court set an expedited schedule for the case, with oral arguments taking place approximately seven weeks after the Court agreed to hear the case.www.nytimes.com | Mar 19, 2024 Justice Lewis Powell in Fitzgerald v. Nixon also cited Barr v. Matteo (1959) and Stump v. Sparkman (1978) to determine that the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office.constitutioncenter.org | Mar 12, 2024 The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether former President Trump is immune from prosecution for interference in the 2020 presidential election, with oral argument in Trump v. United States set for April 22, 2024.thehill.com | Mar 11, 2024 The Supreme Court's framing of the issue it will address in the case suggests it may rule on whether a former President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, rather than the absolute immunity proposed by both parties.www.usatoday.com | Mar 8, 2024 The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against Trump's claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his term as President.www.newyorker.com | Mar 3, 2024 The Supreme Court's consideration of the immunity claim is based on a legal question that has not been previously tested, which could establish guidelines for the conduct of any future president.www.salon.com | Mar 2, 2024 The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the immunity claim, indicating a short-term victory for Donald Trump, who has sought to delay the criminal case against him.www.salon.com | Mar 2, 2024 The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether and to what extent a former president is immune from prosecution for conduct that allegedly involves his official acts during his time in office.www.scotusblog.com | Feb 28, 2024 The U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the charges against him on the ground of immunity from prosecution.www.scotusblog.com | Feb 28, 2024 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a unanimous rejection of Donald Trump's argument for immunity from prosecution.www.lawfareblog.com | Feb 27, 2024 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that Donald Trump failed to point to any historical evidence or legal precedent supporting absolute immunity for a former president.www.lawfareblog.com | Feb 27, 2024 The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution before his trial, which could allow for a trial to take place before the November presidential election.www.lawfareblog.com | Feb 6, 2024
Lower Court Rulings
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan have consistently ruled against Donald Trump's claims of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his presidency. They have determined that if a president violates 'generally applicable' criminal laws or commits criminal acts outside the scope of his duties, he is not immune from prosecution. The courts have also noted the absence of historical evidence or legal precedent supporting such immunity. These rulings pave the way for a potential trial before the November presidential election, as Trump's motion to dismiss the charges based on immunity was denied.
Source FactsThe D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if a president breaks a 'generally applicable' criminal law, then that president is acting outside the scope of his duties and therefore has no immunity.thehill.com | Mar 28, 2024 A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington ruled in early February that former President Donald Trump is not entitled to presidential immunity from federal prosecution for 'assertedly official acts'.www.cbsnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 Prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith have argued that there is no broad immunity preventing former presidents from being prosecuted for criminal acts committed in office, and that an attempt to 'use fraudulent means to thwart the transfer of power' should not be considered an official act.www.nbcnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against Trump's claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his term as President.www.newyorker.com | Mar 3, 2024 The U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the charges against him on the ground of immunity from prosecution.www.scotusblog.com | Feb 28, 2024 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a unanimous rejection of Donald Trump's argument for immunity from prosecution.www.lawfareblog.com | Feb 27, 2024 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that Donald Trump failed to point to any historical evidence or legal precedent supporting absolute immunity for a former president.www.lawfareblog.com | Feb 27, 2024 The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution before his trial, which could allow for a trial to take place before the November presidential election.www.lawfareblog.com | Feb 6, 2024
Presidential Immunity Scope
The Supreme Court is set to determine the extent of a former president's immunity from prosecution for conduct related to official acts during their term. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has previously ruled that a president is not immune if they break a 'generally applicable' criminal law, suggesting a limit to immunity. A federal appeals court panel also denied immunity to Trump for 'assertedly official acts'. Prosecutors argue there is no broad immunity, especially for criminal acts related to the transfer of power. Trump's legal team contends that without absolute immunity, future presidents could be vulnerable to coercion. Some state attorneys general advocate for a two-part test that maintains broad, but not unlimited, presidential immunity based on constitutional structure.
Source FactsThe D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if a president breaks a 'generally applicable' criminal law, then that president is acting outside the scope of his duties and therefore has no immunity.thehill.com | Mar 28, 2024 Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Alaska Attorney General Treg R. Taylor, and Wyoming Attorney General Bridget Hill proposed a two-part test for presidential immunity that would still allow for broad immunity, arguing that very broad, but not limitless, presidential immunity is dictated by the constitutional structure.missouriindependent.com | Mar 20, 2024 A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington ruled in early February that former President Donald Trump is not entitled to presidential immunity from federal prosecution for 'assertedly official acts'.www.cbsnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 Prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith have argued that there is no broad immunity preventing former presidents from being prosecuted for criminal acts committed in office, and that an attempt to 'use fraudulent means to thwart the transfer of power' should not be considered an official act.www.nbcnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 Donald Trump's lawyers have argued to the Supreme Court that a ruling against his claim of absolute immunity would incapacitate every future president, leaving them open to blackmail and extortion.www.nbcnews.com | Mar 19, 2024 The Supreme Court's framing of the issue it will address in the case suggests it may rule on whether a former President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, rather than the absolute immunity proposed by both parties.www.usatoday.com | Mar 8, 2024 The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether and to what extent a former president is immune from prosecution for conduct that allegedly involves his official acts during his time in office.www.scotusblog.com | Feb 28, 2024
Other Key Statements
Source FactsThe Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is considering the legal question of whether a former president enjoys presidential immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.www.nbcnews.com | Mar 19, 2024
Analogize the Past
Historical Findings
Historical background
Lower courts have consistently rejected Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office, with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that such immunity does not extend post-presidency. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, focusing solely on the issue of presidential immunity, with historical precedents like Fitzgerald v. Nixon suggesting a possible entitlement to immunity for official acts within the duties of office. Legal experts are skeptical of Trump's chances to secure a ruling for absolute immunity.
Source FactsA Feb. 6 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling against Donald Trump, noting that the charges allege criminal action that emanated from an effort to unlawfully retain the presidency.missouriindependent.com | Mar 20, 2024 Donald Trump's attorneys have argued that criminal charges against him should be dismissed under a doctrine of 'absolute presidential immunity', which they claim is necessary for presidents to properly exercise their powers.missouriindependent.com | Mar 20, 2024 Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the immunity question are scheduled for April 25, and federal district court proceedings have been halted until the Supreme Court issues a ruling.missouriindependent.com | Mar 20, 2024 Former President Donald J. Trump has submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing for absolute immunity from criminal charges related to his actions during the 2020 election.www.nytimes.com | Mar 19, 2024 Legal experts have expressed the opinion that Donald J. Trump is unlikely to prevail in his argument for absolute immunity before the Supreme Court.www.nytimes.com | Mar 19, 2024 A unanimous three-judge District of Columbia Circuit appeals court panel ruled that former President Trump could be prosecuted, stating that any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him after leaving office.constitutioncenter.org | Mar 12, 2024 On February 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay and limited the arguments in the case Donald J. Trump v. United States to the single issue of presidential immunity.constitutioncenter.org | Mar 12, 2024 In Fitzgerald v. Nixon, a Supreme Court decision from 1982, Justice Lewis Powell's majority opinion stated that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability for official acts, and this immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of the duties of office.constitutioncenter.org | Mar 12, 2024 In the Supreme Court decision Fitzgerald v. Nixon from 1982, the Court ruled 5-4 that a former President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.constitutioncenter.org | Mar 12, 2024 The Supreme Court has previously ruled in Barr v. Matteo (1959) and Stump v. Sparkman (1978) that the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office.constitutioncenter.org | Mar 12, 2024 The U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss criminal charges against him on the ground of immunity from prosecution.www.scotusblog.com | Feb 28, 2024 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the decision to deny Donald Trump's immunity claim and rejected the claim that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless impeached and convicted by the Senate.www.scotusblog.com | Feb 28, 2024 The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether and to what extent a former president is immune from prosecution for conduct that allegedly involves his official acts during his time in office.www.scotusblog.com | Feb 28, 2024 A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected former President Donald J. Trump's argument that he may not be prosecuted for actions he took while in office.www.nytimes.com | Feb 12, 2024 The Supreme Court's majority opinion, as expressed in an unsigned order, stated that the appeals court's ruling against Mr. Trump would have been the same even if he were the incumbent president, indicating that his status as a former president did not influence the decision.www.nytimes.com | Jan 19, 2022
Historical Frequencies
Simulate the Future
Weight Forecasts
| Model | Implied Forecast | Weight | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative Supreme Court favors executive power | 36% | ||
| Weighting reasoning: Assigning lower weight because this forecast refers to power of the Executive Branch, not necessarily power of the President. None of the instances provided are about a former leader in the executive branch. | |||
| Supreme Court cases set new executive privilege precedents | 19% | ||
| Weighting reasoning: This forecast is most central to the issue at hand. The few instances that affirm the condition are from over 50 years ago: 1867, 1936, and 1974 | |||
| Supreme Court favors immunity for former official | 65% | ||
| Weighting reasoning: This forecast carries less weight because Trump v. United States is first of its kind; There has never been a case involving a former official as high-ranking as former President of the United States | |||
| Supreme Court cases where lower court ruling was reversed, rejected, or remanded | 66% | ||
| Weighting reasoning: This is the most basic base rate and should be interpreted as a starting point; it captures anything missing from more narrow base rates and makes up for instances where more narrow reference classes may account for details that are irrelevant to forecasted question. | |||
| Conservative-majority Supreme Court disrupts status quo | 64% | ||
| Weighting reasoning: Assigning a low weight because the more specific version of this forecast "Supreme Court cases set new executive privilege precedents" underscores that while conservative Courts have a tendency to disrupt the status quo, this is not the case for matters of executive privilege. | |||
| Historical Forecast: | N/A | ||
Conservative Supreme Court favors executive power
Forecast: 36%
Weight: 0.04
Weighting reasoning: Assigning lower weight because this forecast refers to power of the Executive Branch, not necessarily power of the President. None of the instances provided are about a former leader in the executive branch.
Supreme Court cases set new executive privilege precedents
Forecast: 19%
Weight: 0.61
Weighting reasoning: This forecast is most central to the issue at hand. The few instances that affirm the condition are from over 50 years ago: 1867, 1936, and 1974
Supreme Court favors immunity for former official
Forecast: 65%
Weight: 0.05
Weighting reasoning: This forecast carries less weight because Trump v. United States is first of its kind; There has never been a case involving a former official as high-ranking as former President of the United States
Supreme Court cases where lower court ruling was reversed, rejected, or remanded
Forecast: 66%
Weight: 0.06
Weighting reasoning: This is the most basic base rate and should be interpreted as a starting point; it captures anything missing from more narrow base rates and makes up for instances where more narrow reference classes may account for details that are irrelevant to forecasted question.
Conservative-majority Supreme Court disrupts status quo
Forecast: 64%
Weight: 0.23
Weighting reasoning: Assigning a low weight because the more specific version of this forecast "Supreme Court cases set new executive privilege precedents" underscores that while conservative Courts have a tendency to disrupt the status quo, this is not the case for matters of executive privilege.
Historical forecast: N/A
FUTURESEARCH Forecast
15% probability
Small possibilityI began with a historical forecast of 35%, and then revised it to 15% based on five reasons: (1) The weakness of Trump's legal team's case (2) The unprecedented nature of a former president's immunity from prosecution (3) The conservative majority's jurisprudential philosophies (4) The potential impact on the Court's perceived legitimacy due to the proximity of the 2024 Presidential election (5) The Supreme Court has incentives to hear this novel case to affirm the lower court's decision and maintain the status quo, thereby emphasizing the thoroughness of their review or reinforcing the lower court's ruling. At least one Justice's inclination towards broad presidential powers provides some counterbalance.