Monday, July 1, 2024

# 2- Trump v. U.S - Concurring Opinions

Looking at the Concurring Opinions - 

  1. Justice Thomas - This Whole Case Is Questionable -Questions the appointment of a special prosecutor here - "there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law." 
  2. Justice Barrett - Yes, A President Can Be Prosecuted in More Situations - "Though I agree that a President cannot be held criminally liable for conduct within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority and closely related acts, . . ., the Constitution does not vest every exercise of executive power in the President’s sole discretion, . . . Congress has concurrent authority over many Government functions, and it may sometimes use that authority to regulate the President’s official conduct, including by criminal statute. Article II poses no barrier to prosecution in such cases." (citations omitted).
    1. "This two-step analysis—considering first whether the statute applies and then whether its application to the particular facts is constitutional—is similar to the approach that the Special Counsel presses in this Court."
    2. The President's actions with States may not be immune - "For example, the indictment alleges that the President 'asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing' about election fraud claims. The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power."
    3. President gets an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s ruling, but a typical criminal defendant has to wait. 
    4. "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable."
    5. "Thus, a President facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment. If that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial." 

See # 1 - Trump v. U.S. - Majority - Kicks the Can Down the Road

See # 3 Trump v. U.S. - Dissenting Opinions - It's Over


Judicial Opinions | Permalink


Post a comment