Sotomayor Slams Supreme Court Immunity Ruling in Terrifying Dissent

In a devastating 6–3 decision issued Monday, the conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court did what it was installed by Trump to do and twisted the Constitution to shield Trump from criminal liability for crimes he committed in office. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Trump in an attempt to evade prosecution for his alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The decision effectively gives a green light to all future presidents to commit as many crimes as they want while in office. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, “the President is now a king above the law.”

Sotomayor led in the chilling dissent, joined by liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor’s dissent is charged with fierce criticisms of the decision, noting that the conservative majority “invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law” and “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

Sotomayor shredded the conservative decision by examining the intentions laid out by the Founding Fathers in contrast to the current ambitions of Trump and the justices aligned with him—a seemingly originalist examination refuting the conservative justices’ recent trend of augmenting the law to come to a politically advantageous decision.

“Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and unhesitating action’ by the President, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.”

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world,” Sotomayor wrote. “When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done.”

Sotomayor’s dissent cast dark clouds over the fate of the country, writing, “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,” wrote Sotomayor. “Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop,” she added.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Sotomayor concluded.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson railed Monday against the decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, arguing in her dissent that the “flawed reasoning and far-reaching results” of the majority opinion “[wreak] havoc on Government agencies, businesses, and society at large.”

In a 6–3 ruling along ideological lines, the court decided that the clock on a statute of limitations for complaints against an agency regulation doesn’t begin when the regulation is put in place, but when the plaintiff is injured. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, with all three liberal justices dissenting.

In her dissent, Jackson explained that this decision makes way for a torrent of litigation challenging long-settled statutes, in what could potentially be a massively destabilizing ruling against the federal government.

“After today, even the most well-settled agency regulations can be placed on the chopping block,” she wrote.

Under the new doctrine, for a regulation to be challenged, all one needs to do is create a new entity that is “injured” by the regulation. The plaintiff then has six years to pursue a legal challenge against the supposedly injurious rule. As easily as a new entity can form, a new challenge can be levied, culminating in a torrent of litigation that could overwhelm federal capacities, handing over all power to the judiciary.

“Any established government regulation about any issue—say, workplace safety, toxic waste, or consumer protection—can now be attacked by any new regulated entity within six years of the entity’s formation. A brand new entity could pop up and challenge a regulation that is decades old; perhaps even one that is as old as the APA itself,” Jackson wrote, referencing the Administrative Procedure Act, which was passed in 1946. “No matter how entrenched, heavily relied upon, or central to the functioning of our society a rule is, the majority has announced open season.”

While some agency actions rely on more specific statute of limitations rules, which could potentially shield them from the court’s ruling, it’s also likely that plaintiffs will be able to seek out far-right district court judges who will be more likely to rule in their favor against federal agencies.

In explaining the ramifications of the majority decision, Jackson referred to Friday’s decision obliterating the Chevron deference, severely undermining administrative law by requiring that challenges to ambiguous doctrine in agency statutes be heard in court.

“Seeking to minimize the fully foreseeable and potentially devastating impact of its ruling, the majority maintains that there is nothing to see here, because not every lawsuit brought by a new industry upstart will win, and, at any rate, many agency regulations are already subject to challenge,” Jackson wrote. “But this myopic rationalization overlooks other significant changes that this Court has wrought this Term with respect to the longstanding rules governing review of agency actions.”

“The discerning reader will know that the Court has handed down other decisions this Term that likewise invite and enable a wave of regulatory challenges—decisions that carry with them the possibility that well-established agency rules will be upended in ways that were previously unimaginable. Doctrines that were once settled are now unsettled, and claims that lacked merit a year ago are suddenly up for grabs.”

One clear example of this is the mifepristone ruling, when the court ruled earlier this month to temporarily preserve access to the abortion pill. But the case hinged not on whether people have a right to bodily autonomy but whether the plaintiffs had standing to challenge a federal agency’s decision. And that same question has already been applied to gun control in a lower court.

“The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government,” Jackson warned, and she urged Congress to pass protections “to address this absurdity and forestall the coming chaos.”

“It can opt to correct this Court’s mistake by clarifying that the statutes it enacts are designed to facilitate the functioning of agencies, not to hobble them,” she wrote.

Despite calls for her to replace Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee for president in November, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer wants no part of it. But she may have warned the president that her state is now unwinnable for him.

Politico reports that Whitmer made a phone call to the Biden campaign Friday night saying that she was upset with her name being floated as a replacement for Biden, and that she had nothing to do with it.

However, Politico columnist Jonathan Martin wrote that he was alerted to the call by a national Democratic rival to Whitmer, who said the Michigan governor also called to tell the Biden camp that the debate had ruined the president’s chances in the state.

Whatever the case may be, this is not great news for Biden, except for Whitmer wishing to stay out of replacement discussions. The fact that a “Draft Gretch” movement has quickly arisen after Thursday night’s debate disaster shows that at least a segment of Democrats want to replace Biden. And if Whitmer actually called the campaign to tell them Michigan was lost, which she would have insight into as governor, that’s a key battleground state at risk in November.

Michigan was the target of a coordinated effort for voters to select an “uncommitted” option during the Democratic presidential primary elections to protest Biden’s support of Israel’s brutal war in Gaza. “Uncommitted” ended up with 13.2 percent of the vote in Michigan’s February primary and jumpstarted a national effort, with several other states with the option on their ballots registering strong showings. In total, 37 uncommitted delegates will be present at the Democratic National Convention in August, and could be a factor if confidence in Biden’s ability to defeat Donald Trump continues to drop.

Right now, Democrats and the Biden campaign are still reeling from Thursday’s debate, with calls echoing from across the Democratic Party spectrum for him to step aside or refuse to run again. While former President Barack Obama attempted to tamp down those calls with a tweet Friday afternoon, others have urged him to make a more forceful intervention. It seems that the next few weeks and months could have a crucial effect not only on November’s election but on the fate of the country at large.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump cannot be held accountable for some of the actions he took to overturn the 2020 election results.

The case, Trump v. United States, sprang out of Trump’s federal election interference trial as a preemptive defense, arguing that Trump could not be tried on conspiracy and obstruction charges due to presidential immunity privileges that he held during office—but few expected Monday’s outcome.

In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the court ruled that some of the actions Trump was indicted for could be categorized as official acts during his presidency.

“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” read the opinion’s syllabus. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts outlined that the president is not immune from criminal prosecution—except on some occasions.

“The President is not above the law,” Roberts wrote. “But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor feared for the future of a country that legally permits the executive branch authority to commit crimes under the cloak of the office, arguing that the court’s decision made a “mockery” of the Constitutional principle that “no man is above the law,” and that its “own misguided wisdom” gave Trump “all the immunity he asked for and more.”

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,” Sotomayor wrote. “Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

The decision from the conservative majority overturned a federal appeals court ruling that had unanimously rejected all three of Trump’s presidential immunity arguments in his January 6 case, “patiently, painstakingly, and unsparingly” dismantling his arguments in an “airtight” opinion, according to George Conway, a conservative attorney and ex-husband of former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway.

“This opinion is so good, and so clear, so comprehensive, there’s nothing in it that could be possibly attacked. I don’t see how even the Supreme Court could write—I don’t see how any judge, any court, anywhere, including the Supreme Court, could write a better opinion that more accurately states what the law is and should be,” Conway told CNN in February before the Supreme Court opted to hear the case.

Monday’s decision effectively kills the January 6 trial, which would have been overseen by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

This story has been updated.

Donald Trump stayed up well past his bedtime Sunday and, like so many people who have a toxic relationship with social media, spent his night rage-posting about Nancy Pelosi.

At 12:30 a.m. E.T., Trump fumed at Pelosi’s Sunday morning appearance on MSNBC, where she described Trump’s debate last week as a “manifesto of lies” and recalled when she shredded a copy of his State of the Union address in 2020. This apparently roiled Trump, who falsely claimed Pelosi was “exposed by her daughter, a filmmaker, as being fully responsible for the lack of security on January 6th” before declaring Pelosi is “a sick ‘puppy,’ and always has been!!”

During her interview on MSNBC, Pelosi pointed out that it was Trump’s own inactions that aided in the riotous storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, likening it to Trump’s downplaying of Covid-19 and elevation of Covid-related conspiracy theories which, Pelosi and public health experts agree, greatly exacerbated the pandemic.

“This is a dangerous person and evil,” Pelosi told MSNBC.

Trump blamed Pelosi for the Capitol riot during his debate—but Pelosi didn’t block the National Guard from mobilizing as Trump supporters rioted at the Capitol. She doesn’t even have authority to reject them—and footage captured by her daughter on January 6, 2021 showed Pelosi desperately calling military contacts to ask why the National Guard hadn’t mobilized.

The morning after the debate, Pelosi pointed out the absurdity of Trump’s claim, telling reporters with CBS, “He thinks I planned my own assassination? He’s sicker than I thought.”