At some point, the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity will return to the judge handling the case – the criminal prosecution of Donald J. Trump on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
And if that happens, the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, will face a difficult task.
Judge Chutkan had to sort through the 45-page indictment, making decisions about how many charges could go forward and which should be dismissed.
The Supreme Court has held that former presidents are fully protected from charges arising from their core constitutional duties, but they can face lawsuits for unofficial actions they took while in the White House.
The Court also created a third, more complex category, which is most likely the focus of Judge Chutkan’s work. The court said Mr. Trump is presumed immune from prosecution for all official acts, but prosecutors can overcome that presumption if they can show that filing charges related to official acts would not interfere with the “authority and function of the executive branch.”
It’s unclear when Judge Chutkan will begin considering how many of the indictments are viable, but the Supreme Court is providing guidance — albeit muddled — on how to approach the question that its decision raises.
The indictment filed against Mr. Trump in Washington by the special counsel, Jack Smith, accuses the former president of using five major methods to undermine the last election.
Here’s a look at the court talking about everyone.
Strong-Arming the Department of Justice
Prosecutors said one of the ways Mr. Trump tried to stay in power was to get the two top Justice Department officials — Jeffrey A. Rosen, the attorney general, and Richard P. Donoghue, Mr. Rosen’s deputy — to do what he did. a number of bogus investigations in an attempt to validate Mr. Trump’s claim that the election had been marred by widespread fraud.
The purpose of the questioning, the two men said, was to give cover to Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress to claim that the vote count had been rigged.
When the two officials rejected Mr. Trump’s request and said there was no evidence of fraud, Mr. Trump sought to replace them with a loyalist, Jeffrey Clark, who was then in charge of the Justice Department’s civilian division.
Mr. Clark offered to give Mr. Trump what he wanted, prosecutors said. He promised to send a letter to the governor of Georgia stating that the department had in fact found irregularities in the election and asking him to assemble the state legislature to create an alternative electoral board that supports Mr. Trump.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said Mr. Trump was immune from charges based on those communications because discussions with the Justice Department — even about the bogus investigation — were part of his core constitutional duties. The court’s decision means that part of the indictment will almost certainly be thrown out, with Judge Chutkan having no significant say in the matter.
In addition, the court ruling may also mean that Mr. Smith will not be able to rely on the testimony of any department officials to prove other parts of the case. Those officials may include not only Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue, but also former Attorney General William P. Barr, who told Mr. Trump that the election had not been rigged.
This is because the court ruled that evidence related to the president’s official actions cannot be used to support allegations stemming from personal actions.
Another way Mr. Trump sought to stay in power, prosecutors said, was by launching a campaign to pressure the vice president, Mike Pence, to try to change the election results in a process intended to certify him. The proceedings took place at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
In his role as president of the Senate, Mr. Pence presides over the final count of Electoral College votes that will ultimately confirm the victory of Joseph R. Biden Jr.
But in conversations with Mr. Pence and his aides until January 6, Mr. Trump and his allies sought to push the vice president to reject the legitimate election vote or, alternatively, send it back for review by the state. legislature.
Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. used several paragraphs in the immunity decision pointing out how intimate the president and vice president can be with each other.
“When the president and vice president discuss official responsibilities, they are performing official acts,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
The statement would indicate that a majority of the court believes that Mr. Trump should be immune from prosecution for many, if not most, of his dealings with Mr. Pence. But Chief Justice Roberts also noted that the vice president’s role in overseeing election certification by presiding over the Senate “is not an ‘executive branch’ function.”
The chief judge left another way for Mr. Smith to argue that the allegations about Mr. Pence were fair game: He said that, as president, Mr. Trump was not a formal party in the certification at the Capitol.
“Specifically with respect to the certification process,” the chief justice said, “Congress has legislated extensively to define the role of the vice president in the counting of electoral votes, and the president has no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process.”
Judge Chutkan will have to decide whether the Supreme Court left enough of an opening for the part of the indictment related to Mr. Pence to stand — although whatever it decides will likely be appealed by one side or the other.
Jawboning State Lawmakers and Fake Voter Schemes
In its ruling, the court considered Mr. Trump’s next two attempts to maintain his power together because both involved attempts to enlist the help of state officials and private parties — or, as Chief Justice Roberts, “people outside the executive branch.”
Almost immediately after the election was called for Mr. Biden, prosecutors said, Mr. Trump conducted a flurry of phone calls and meetings with election officials and state legislatures in key swing states like Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, all of which have been lost. The goal is to persuade them not to certify the voters they promised to Mr. Biden.
Mr. Trump and his allies are also working on a plan to create their own voter rolls by falsely claiming that Mr. Trump has won states where he has not. This fraudulent election scheme ultimately involved dozens of Republican lawyers, campaign aides and state officials.
Mr. Trump insisted that all of these efforts were being made in his official role as president to “ensure the integrity and proper administration of federal elections,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. And when that position flipped Mr. Smith’s accusation on the head, the majority of the court seemed to entertain the idea.
As the chief justice stated, the president has wide latitude under the Constitution to “maintain that the laws are faithfully executed,” including those governing elections.
He also appears to have the power to discuss the election – even lie – with whomever he pleases.
“The president’s broad power to speak on public issues does not preclude public communication about the fairness and integrity of federal elections simply because he is seeking re-election,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
However, the majority of the court recognized that Mr. Smith had a very different opinion and considered that Mr. Trump’s efforts in the area were not an official act, but a “private scheme with private actors.”
“Unlike Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department, these alleged actions cannot be neatly categorized as specific presidential functions,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
Judge Chutkan must balance the tension between these findings by the Supreme Court when deciding whether charges related to voter fraud and pressure campaigns against state officials should be upheld or dismissed.
Public Declaration About and on January 6
Prosecutors did not directly charge Mr. Trump with causing the violence that erupted in the Capitol, but they signaled that if the election meddling case goes to trial, they will hang responsibility for the unrest on Mr. Trump’s head.
And they want to do what is generally called public statements made on, and in the run-up to, January 6.
In late December 2020, for example, Mr. Trump called his followers to Washington with a Twitter post announcing that a “wild” rally would be held there on January 6. near the White House, told them at one point to “fight like hell” to save the country.
The court suggested that Mr. Trump could not face prosecution for things he said during his speech or wrote on Twitter because, as the majority wrote, “most of the president’s public communications may be outside the fringes of his official responsibility.”
In that case, the prosecutor may not be able to introduce the statement if the case goes to trial.
There is one caveat, however.
The majority said prosecutors could bring charges against Mr Trump’s statements in his personal role as a candidate seeking office – which was on 6 January. “private and official affairs.”
