Litigation

Cal. Litig. VOLUME 37, ISSUE 3, DECEMBER 2024

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY: PRECEDENTIAL IMPUNITY?

Written by William R. Slomanson

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Supreme Court further delayed trial proceedings in the January 6 Insurrection Case against former president Donald Trump. (Trump v. United States (2024) 144 S.Ct. 1027.) That interlocutory order was unsigned and dissent free. At term’s end, the majority opinion in Trump v. United States (2024) 144 S.Ct. 2312 (Roberts, C.J.), spawned a multiple-issue remand. And it also created new presidential immunity law, while taking a number of legal options off the table.

This essay was motivated by observing political pundits, lawyers, and fellow citizens who have commented on the majority opinion, but have apparently not read it. Trial judges in the affected cases will not have that luxury. They are now bound by the Supreme Court’s expansive opinion at this early stage of the Trump-related criminal proceedings. Given the lack of prior precedent, Justice Neil Gorsuch proclaimed during oral argument, "We are writing a rule for the ages." (Camera, ‘We Are Writing A Rule for the Ages’: Supreme Court Justices Give Little Away During Oral Arguments on Scope of Trump’s Presidential Immunity (Apr. 25, 2024) U.S. News & World Report, 2024 WLNR 5353208) [One could question whether that chest-thumping dovetails with the Court’s vintage admonition that it decides constitutional cases on the narrowest grounds]; see generally Stearns, Modeling Narrowest Grounds (2021) 89 Geo. Wash.L.Rev. 461.)

Join CLA to access this page

Join Now

Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.

Payment