Last week we engaged in some legal handicapping in an editorial entitled “Is The Supreme Court Inching Towards Legal Vindication For Former President Trump?” We detected a movement in the Supreme Court to cut back on prosecutorial discretion in order to avoid instances of abuse. This followed several earlier pieces reviewing some decisions to similar effect and also underscoring the need for the Supreme Court to “clean up the mess in our judicial system created by Democratic public officials suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).”
We proceeded to explain TDS as “the operating principle that everything Donald Trump has done or will do was and is presumptively corrupt” and that these officials are “aided and abetted by their fellow TDS sufferers on the bench and on juries in ‘blue’ states who are at the ready to see him convicted of anything with which he is charged.” We went on to say that typically these official – in New York and elsewhere – “reached far to find vague, exploitable language in distant statutes that could be creatively applied to wrap around his conduct.”
We also said that it is crucial to appreciate that precisely because of the elusiveness of the charges, many attribute partisan political motives of the targeting of Trump, a Republican, by Democrats determined to compromise his ability to capitalize on his uncommon magnetism.
So, we were more than a little gratified by the Supreme Court’s decision handed down on Monday in the case of Trump v. United States. The Court ruled that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his preclusive constitutional authority and he is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. But there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
According to the Court’s opinion, the case must now go back to the lower courts to flesh out how the language will be applied so it is premature to wax eloquent at this point about how the language will be applied.
But at least two points are noteworthy. For one thing, the decision is not a pass to “beat the rap.” Rather it provides a safe harbor for those who might be victimized by prosecutors seeking partisan, retributive justice.
Secondly, it appears that avoiding politically motivated prosecutorial abuse was very much on the minds of the Supreme Court Justices. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the 6 Justice majority and in it he said in part: “The President … may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party. [Italics ours].
