The Trump immunity decision isn’t the end of democracy — but it is bad

. The decision virtually guarantees that special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case against the former president won’t move to trial before the election. Yet the implications are much bigger than Mr. Trump. More important — and more alarming — are the potential long-term consequences that could persist well after Mr. Trump is gone.

The immediate consequence has to do with the Trump trial timeline: The Supreme Court has instructed District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is presiding over Mr. Trump’s election interference case, to determine which of the charges in the Justice Department’s indictment concern official versus unofficial acts — and, therefore, which remain valid grounds for prosecuting the former president. Even if she moves quickly, Mr.

Was Richard M. Nixon right, then, when he said, “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal?” Well, not quite. Grave warnings aside, the sky has not yet fallen, even if a sizable chunk of it might be missing. Ex-presidents can still conceivably be punished for those official acts that don’t relate to a president’s core responsibilities — if prosecutors can convincingly argue that punishment wouldn’t hinder a vigorous executive branch.

So it is up to the courts, including the highest in the land, to ensure the nightmare scenarios the critics have dreamed up do not manifest. The trouble is, this week’s opinion invites presidents to push the boundaries.

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Supreme Court returns Trump immunity case to lower courtsRuling says former presidents do not have immunity for unofficial acts. Lower courts will apply the standard to charges that Trump plotted to overturn his...
Source: dallasnews - 🏆 18. / 71 Read more »

Trump VP Contender Byron Donalds Says Supreme Court Should Intervene on Trump’s Guilty ConvictionHe unsurprisingly believes the hush money case was all about election “interference.”
Source: VanityFair - 🏆 391. / 55 Read more »

Supreme Court knocks down Wall Street regulator’s in-house courtsThe justices backed a challenge to the constitutionality of the SEC’s internal tribunals — a resounding win for conservatives.
Source: politico - 🏆 381. / 59 Read more »

Supreme Court courts sides with Starbucks in blow to union activistsExperts say the decision could make it harder for the National Labor Relations Board to obtain relief when companies are accused of violating labor law.
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »

Can State Supreme Courts Preserve—or Expand—Rights?With a lopsided conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, Eyal Press writes, progressive activists are seeking legal opportunities in state constitutions.
Source: NewYorker - 🏆 90. / 67 Read more »

Supreme Court punts social media moderation cases back to lower courtsThe Supreme Court on Monday wiped existing rulings, kicked social media moderation cases back to lower courts
Source: NBCNewYork - 🏆 270. / 63 Read more »