Dems Hitting Panic Button As Supreme Court’s Decision On Immunity Looms


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently released three rulings, with one prominent liberal whining that “bad” news lies ahead.

“That’s it for today, which means nothing of real import came out today. And since we’re already in June that is kind of … BAD,” legal analyst Elie Mystal said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

“Let me put it like this, if *all* the GOP justices were going to do was kick the case back down to Chutkan for further fact finding that would delay his trial to after the election, they could have done that by now. The fact that they haven’t yet doesn’t make me think they’re going to rule *against* Trump’s broader immunity claims. It makes me think (or fear, very much fear) that maybe Alito is trying to GRANT *absolute* immunity, or something near to it, to Trump,” Mystal added.

“It’s going to be a (completely avoidable) mess,” legal analyst Steve Vladeck posted to X.

The court heard oral arguments in Trump v. United States on April 25.

Trump has essentially argued that there is no way for presidents to face criminal charges for actions they made while serving in office. The Supreme Court’s ruling will immediately have an impact on his federal election interference case, and it might also have an impact on the federal secret materials lawsuit he is currently defending in Florida.

It’s also possible that Trump’s Georgia election meddling case may be shelved, though it has already been put on hold and is not expected to reopen until after the 2024 election.

Liberals are not happy about this.


“Both relieved that the Supreme Court didn’t do anything terrible this morning and acutely aware that we should not have to spend the month of June holding our collective breath,” legal commentator Madiba Dennine tweeted.

But Alex Badas, an assistant professor specializing in judicial politics at the University of Houston, told Newsweek he didn’t think it meant anything that the Supreme Court has not released several major rulings yet.

“The Court takes much longer to publish opinions in the most controversial cases. This is because these cases typically have multiple opinions (the majority opinion, any dissenting opinions, and then any concurring opinions). The Justices typically deliberate much more in these controversial cases. This results in more draft opinions being circulated within the Justices’ chambers before they decide to publish the final opinion. Multiple draft opinions slow down the publication process,” Badas added.

Trump expressed optimism following the recent hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the hearing, his legal team argued for “presidential immunity” regarding charges brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith.

Trump recently said he thinks it was “made clear” that a president “has to have immunity.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity, with immunity having to do with presidential immunity. And I think it was made clear—I hope it is very clear—that a president has to have immunity,” Trump said.

Trump repeated his past claim that without immunity, presidents would be reduced to just a “ceremonial” position.

“That’s not what the founders had in mind,” he said. “We want presidents that can get quite amazing—quite amazing.” He added that the Supreme Court justices “were on their game.”

“So let’s see how that turns out,” he said. “But again, I say presidential immunity is very powerful. Presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won’t have a country anymore.”


The justices are expected to issue their ruling by the end of June at the latest.

Some legal analysts have speculated that the justices could grant Trump partial immunity for acts committed while in office while also remanding the case to a lower court for reconsideration under their guidelines.

Justice Neil Gorsuch argued during the hearing that former presidents ought to enjoy some immunity from subsequent attacks if they leave office.

“It didn’t matter what the president’s motives were; that’s something courts shouldn’t get engaged in … I am concerned about future uses of criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives,” the Supreme Court justice said on April 25.

Gorsuch, Trump’s first of three Supreme Court appointees, hinted during the hearing that if justices decide not to hold that presidents should have some degree of immunity, then future presidents may be able to pardon themselves before leaving office. He also said he didn’t want to decide whether or not a president could exercise that power, as the Epoch Times noted.

“We’ve never answered whether a president can do that; happily, it’s never been presented to us,” Gorsuch said of whether a president can issue a pardon to himself before leaving office.

“What would happen if presidents were under fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office?” Gorsuch also asked, citing a hypothetical situation in which former President Barack Obama could face prosecution for ordering a drone strike that killed civilians.

He and several other conservative-leaning justices said that they were less concerned about President Trump’s charges but more concerned about the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity in general.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” he stated.

“Whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents,” Justice Samuel Alito added.

Chief Justice John Roberts was among the justices who hinted that presidents shouldn’t be exempt from prosecution in any capacity, reports said.

Test your skills with this Quiz!