Special Counsel Jack Smith, investigating former President Trump, has suffered two major legal setbacks in the Supreme Court this week. The court’s rulings, concerning presidential immunity and obstruction charges, are a blow to Smith’s case and could push the election interference trial beyond the 2024 election.
The Biden administration has issued a directive to doctors, emphasizing their legal obligation to perform emergency abortions when necessary to save a pregnant woman’s health. This directive comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, sparking legal tensions with states that have implemented strict abortion bans. The administration argues that emergency room doctors must comply with federal law requiring stabilizing treatment, even if it contradicts state abortion restrictions.
The Supreme Court has ruled that presidents enjoy substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office, but not for unofficial acts. This decision, in the case of Trump v. United States, has sparked debate about the balance of power and accountability within the government. President Biden expressed strong disapproval of the ruling, arguing it allows presidents to act with virtually no limits.
The Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling on presidential immunity, providing significant protection to former President Donald Trump and future presidents from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office. The decision clarifies the boundaries of presidential immunity, establishing that while presidents are not immune from prosecution for unofficial acts, courts cannot inquire into their motives or deem actions unofficial simply because they violate the law. The ruling has major implications for ongoing investigations into Trump, potentially limiting the reach of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probes.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office. This decision has sparked controversy, with President Biden warning of a dangerous precedent and Trump celebrating a ‘big win’ for democracy. The ruling could significantly impact ongoing investigations against Trump, including the January 6 insurrection case.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents have ‘broad immunity’ from prosecution, delaying a criminal case against Donald Trump. This ruling likely pushes back any potential trial before the 2024 US elections.
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents have substantial immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, sending the case back to lower courts. Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns about the constitutionality of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment, questioning whether the office was established by law. Former Attorney General Ed Meese argued that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacks the authority to represent the United States. Thomas echoed these concerns, suggesting that the prosecution cannot proceed without addressing the legality of the Special Counsel’s office.
The Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, a decision former President Trump hailed as a ‘big win for our Constitution and for democracy.’ The court’s ruling in Trump v. United States clarifies the scope of presidential immunity, but leaves the line between official and unofficial acts for lower courts to determine. The decision comes as Trump faces charges in connection with the January 6th Capitol riot and the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate how social media companies moderate user content. The court found that lower courts had not properly analyzed the First Amendment issues in the case. This sends the cases back to the respective Circuit Courts of Appeals for further review.
The Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents enjoy substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. This decision, however, does not directly apply to the charges against former President Donald Trump regarding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, sending the case back to a lower court. The ruling sparked debate about the balance of power and the implications for future presidents.
