Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

3825-87867

(1,805 posts)
4. Doesn't that make him no longer immune according to Roberts' ruling?
Sun Jan 4, 2026, 06:21 PM
Sunday

I understood he's only immune from "OFFICIAL ACTS"

from Wikipedia:

Overview of the Immunity Ruling

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling regarding presidential immunity in the case of Trump v. United States. The Court decided that former presidents have a presumption of immunity from criminal prosecution for actions related to their official duties. This ruling was made in a 6-3 decision.
Key Points of the Ruling
Immunity Scope

Absolute Immunity: The Court established that presidents have absolute immunity for acts performed within their core constitutional powers, such as military command and law execution.

Presumptive Immunity: There is a presumption of immunity for official acts that fall within the outer perimeter of a president's responsibilities.

No Immunity for Unofficial Acts: The ruling clarified that presidents do not have immunity for actions that are deemed unofficial or personal.

Implications for Trump

The ruling allows for the possibility that charges against Donald Trump, related to his actions during the 2020 election, can proceed if they are based on his unofficial conduct.

The case was sent back to lower courts to determine whether Trump's alleged actions were official or unofficial, which may delay any trial.

Reactions to the Ruling

Criticism: The decision has faced backlash from legal experts and politicians who argue it undermines accountability and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.

Support: Some commentators believe the ruling does not grant unchecked power to the presidency and emphasizes the need for careful legal interpretation in future cases.

This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal discussions surrounding presidential powers and accountability.


Seems like Supine Court Toilet Paper!

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Rep. Jim Himes says Madur...»Reply #4