The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that all presidents are presumed to be immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” while in office, stemming from an appeal related to former President Donald Trump’s federal election interference case in Washington D.C.
This ruling has raised concerns about the viability of Georgia’s Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ criminal case against Trump and others, which is built on similar charged acts as the D.C. prosecution.
Legal experts believe that Willis’ case against Trump is now at risk due to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday established that all presidents are granted “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions within their core constitutional powers.
They are also presumed to have immunity for acts within their “official” duties, but not for purely private or “unofficial” acts during their presidency.
Last year, former President Trump and several others were criminally indicted by DA Willis in a racketeering or RICO case related to their alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.
This included pressuring state officials and creating an alternate slate of electors to give Georgia’s electoral votes to Trump instead of President Biden.
However, Trump’s phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and the creation of an alternate slate of pro-Trump electors could potentially be considered part of his “official” duties as president and therefore be immune from prosecution.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion suggests that discussing election fraud and integrity with state election officials like Raffensperger would fall under Trump’s duty to ensure that all laws, including federal election laws, are upheld and enforced.
According to former federal prosecutor Michael McAuliffe, if the Georgia state RICO case is based on actions that are fundamental presidential duties or at least official, then the new immunity case could pose a significant obstacle to the government’s prosecution.
McAuliffe shared this opinion with Newsweek.
“Given the narrative overlap between the federal January 6th case and the Georgia state case, the state judge will likely follow the federal judge’s determinations,” he added in reference to the D.C. district judge now tasked by the Supreme Court with determining which of Trump’s charged acts constitute “official” or “unofficial” acts.
Likewise, in his review of the Supreme Court’s ruling that specifically applies to the federal election-related case in D.C., CNN legal analyst Elie Honig surmised that “the Georgia case, the Fani Willis indictment, that one is in big trouble.”
“That alleges essentially, largely, the same conduct as in Jack Smith’s January 6 case,” he added. “So, they’re going to have in Georgia, the same exact immunity issues.”
Honig also suggested that the recent conviction of Trump in New York by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg could potentially be overturned by the high court’s ruling.
This is because the conviction was partly based on evidence from Trump’s time as president, which might be considered as falling under “official” acts immunity.
The RICO case brought by DA Willis against former President Trump always seemed to be a long shot, and it had already faced significant challenges and indefinite delays due in large part to Willis’ own questionable actions as a prosecutor.
Now, her case appears to have been severely impacted by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, which appears to shield Trump from the criminal charges pressed against him by Willis.
2 Comments
Exactly what I was saying when Trump was first charged, the top executive in the nation has the duty to insure free and fair elections, but as always, the weak-minded Marxist’s called me a MAGA lunatic. Why is it that the people in the democrat party have zero common sense?
Prime example of what happens when EEOC and DEI are implemented. Individuals are placed in positions being very unqualified. This congolite and congolite friend set their tribes back 350 years !!!