Supreme Court Grants Broad Immunity to Presidents in Trump Cases and Overturns Federal Regulator Deference Doctrine

New York, New York United States of America
Judge Aileen Cannon paused deadlines in Mar-a-Lago classified documents case due to presidential immunity
Supreme Court ended federal regulator deference doctrine, making it easier to challenge federal rules
Supreme Court grants broad immunity to presidents in Trump cases
Trump's team arguing some evidence in hush money case should be dismissed due to new Supreme Court test on official acts
Supreme Court Grants Broad Immunity to Presidents in Trump Cases and Overturns Federal Regulator Deference Doctrine

In recent developments, the Supreme Court has made two significant rulings that have major implications for ongoing legal cases involving former President Donald Trump. The first ruling grants broad immunity from criminal prosecution to presidents, while the second case saw potential abortion cases and social media censorship decisions being less consequential.

Judge Aileen Cannon, in a divisive decision with implications for the presidential contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, granted Trump's request for further briefing on the issue of presidential immunity in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. The order follows Monday's Supreme Court decision that ruled Trump has immunity from prosecution for some conduct as president in the federal election interference case.

Two upcoming deadlines for Trump and his co-defendants have been paused, with Smith's brief now due on July 18 and a reply from Trump's team due on July 21. Neither Trump nor the Department of Justice immediately responded to a request for comment Saturday afternoon.

Meanwhile, in another landmark decision, the Supreme Court ended its term by granting broad immunity from criminal prosecution to presidents. This ruling has major implications for this fall's presidential contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

The conservative justices also trashed a 40-year doctrine that gave deference to federal regulators in legal disputes, making it generally easier to challenge federal rules or weakening the enforcement ability of specific federal agencies. Rulings on culture war issues were less consequential due to the court's decisions on two potential abortion cases and social media censorship.

Amy Coney Barrett emerged as a distinctive voice during the term, while Sonia Sotomayor, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas were also notable justices. However, Trump's team is arguing that some evidence used to prove his falsified business records charge should be dismissed due to the Supreme Court's new test on official acts.

These developments come as former President Trump was convicted of a crime in a New York jury in May 2023. The guilty verdict in Trump's hush money case is already in peril following the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, with Judge Juan Merchan delaying the sentencing until September.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

91%

Doubts
  • Is the evidence used to prove Trump's falsified business records charge truly affected by the new Supreme Court test on official acts?

Sources

82%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Supreme Court immunity decision collides with Trump’s NY conviction

The Hill News Site: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate-seethe-republicans-call-for-israeli-elections/ Ella Lee, Sunday, 07 July 2024 16:00
  • Unique Points
    • Former President Trump was convicted of a crime in a New York jury in May 2023.
    • The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy at least presumptive criminal immunity for all official acts, potentially enabling Trump to avoid trial on any remaining charges before the November 2024 election.
    • Trump’s team is arguing that some evidence used to prove his falsified business records charge should be dismissed due to the Supreme Court’s new test on official acts.
  • Accuracy
    • The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy at least presumptive criminal immunity for all official acts.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article reports on the Supreme Court's decision regarding former President Trump's immunity and its potential impact on his criminal conviction. The authors provide analysis and commentary on the ruling, which includes editorializing and pontification. They also use emotional manipulation by describing Trump's conviction as a 'biggest legal victory yet in his criminal prosecutions', 'huge legal victory', and 'one of the biggest hurdles'. Additionally, they selectively report details that support their position by focusing on the impact of the ruling on Trump's ongoing criminal cases and potential future election campaign. The authors do not disclose any sources for their quotes or information.
    • It all but certainly enables him to avoid trial on any of his remaining charges before November’s election, when he hopes to retake the White House and grind his cases to a halt.
    • The fact that that the government used it in their closing arguments, or the extent that the government relied on it when making arguments to the jury, will factor into the court’s consideration of how important that evidence was.
    • The latest in politics and policy. Direct to your inbox. Sign up for the 12:30 Report newsletter
    • Trump does not claim immunity from the actual 34 counts of falsifying business records he faced, but he instead has zeroed in on trial evidence used to prove those counts.
    • The biggest hurdle is that the Supreme Court has set up a presumption, which puts a burden on the prosecutor. But it’s not an insurmountable burden.
  • Fallacies (90%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that 'The Supreme Court found former presidents enjoy at least presumptive criminal immunity for all official acts.' This statement is not a direct quotation from the Supreme Court decision and is an interpretation of its implications by the authors. The article also contains a potential dichotomous depiction when it describes Trump's legal team's argument as 'new ammunition in his efforts to wipe his only criminal conviction,' implying that there is no other way for Trump to challenge the conviction, which may not be accurate.
    • The Supreme Court found former presidents enjoy at least presumptive criminal immunity for all official acts.
    • new ammunition in his efforts to wipe his only criminal conviction
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

100%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Judge Aileen Cannon grants Trump's request to pause some deadlines in classified documents case amid immunity questions

NBC News Digital Monday, 08 July 2024 19:55
  • Unique Points
    • U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted former President Donald Trump’s request for further briefing on the issue of presidential immunity in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and delayed certain deadlines.
    • Cannon’s order followed the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision on Monday, which ruled that Trump has immunity from prosecution for some conduct as president in the federal election interference case.
    • Two upcoming deadlines for Trump and his co-defendants have been paused. Smith’s brief is now due on July 18, and a reply from Trump’s team is due on July 21.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

92%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Win for Trump, surprise on abortion: Takeaways from historic Supreme Court term

USA Today Sunday, 07 July 2024 00:00
  • Unique Points
    • The Supreme Court granted broad immunity from criminal prosecution to presidents in a divisive decision with implications for the presidential contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
    • Rulings on culture war issues were less consequential due to the court’s decisions on two potential abortion cases and social media censorship.
    • Amy Coney Barrett emerged as a distinctive voice during the term, while Sonia Sotomayor, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas were also notable justices.
  • Accuracy
    • ,
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (90%)
    The author makes several statements in this article, some of which contain informal fallacies. The author uses the phrase 'it wasn't the high court's only monumental decision this year' to set up a series of statements about various Supreme Court cases. This is an example of an appeal to ignorance fallacy, as the author is implying that there were other monumental decisions without providing any evidence or details. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing some of the court's decisions as 'monumental' and 'major implications.' However, these terms are subjective and do not provide any clear or objective criteria for evaluating the significance of the decisions.
    • ]The author uses the phrase 'it wasn't the high court's only monumental decision this year' to set up a series of statements about various Supreme Court cases without providing any evidence or details. This is an example of an appeal to ignorance fallacy.[
    • The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing some of the court's decisions as 'monumental' and 'major implications.'
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

83%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

I Argued ‘U.S. v. Nixon.’ The Supreme Court’s New Ruling on Presidential Immunity Appalled Me.

The Bulwark LLC Philip Allen Monday, 08 July 2024 19:57
  • Unique Points
    • In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that President Richard Nixon was subject to the laws of the United States and could be required to produce evidence related to potential federal crimes.
    • Nixon was ordered to produce the evidence, which showed his own complicity and led him to resign as president.
    • Last week, in Donald Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court created a unique prerogative for presidents to commit federal crimes with impunity.
  • Accuracy
    • The Supreme Court ruled that President Richard Nixon was subject to the laws of the United States and could be required to produce evidence related to potential federal crimes.
    • Former President Trump was convicted of a crime in a New York jury in May 2023.
    • Trump was ordered to produce the evidence, which showed his own complicity and led him to resign as president.
    • Trump's team is arguing that some evidence used to prove his falsified business records charge should be dismissed due to the Supreme Court’s new test on official acts.
  • Deception (80%)
    The author expresses his personal opinion and emotional reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in the Trump case, which is not deceptive in itself. However, he makes several statements that imply deception through selective reporting and editorializing. He compares the Nixon and Trump cases, implying that the Trump decision was a departure from precedent when it actually builds on Nixon by expanding presidential immunity. He also implies that the justices in the majority in Trump were motivated by partisanship, which is an opinion not supported by evidence in the article. Furthermore, he uses emotional language to manipulate readers' emotions and create a sense of urgency.
    • One of Nixon’s key constitutional claims was that…The Court rejected that theory...
    • Just sixteen days later, the Court concluded that...The people of the United States prevailed.
    • In Trump, several of the justices in the majority came of age under the influence of conservative ideas about the desirability of strengthening the presidency...
    • According to the majority, the president is…From this sweeping—and facially unsound—proposition, it somehow follows that…
    • Fifty years ago today, on July 8, 1974, I walked up the steps of the Supreme Court along with Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski to present oral arguments. I remember feeling confident that Monday morning...
    • First, there is a remarkable disparity in the justices’ approach to promoting public respect for the integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution.
  • Fallacies (90%)
    The author makes an appeal to history and the importance of unanimity in Supreme Court decisions. However, there are some instances of informal fallacies and dichotomous depictions in the article. The author states that 'Dramatically different in tone and content was last week’s decision in Donald Trump v. United States' without providing any evidence or explanation for this claim, which is an example of an unsupported opinion fallacy. Additionally, the author uses the phrase 'arrogant message of judicial realpolitik' to describe the pro-Trump majority's decision, which is a value judgment and a form of name-calling. The author also states that 'The views of the presidency on the Burger Court and the Roberts Court could not be more different', but does not provide any evidence or explanation for this claim, which is another example of an unsupported opinion fallacy.
    • ]Dramatically different in tone and content was last week’s decision in Donald Trump v. United States[
    • ']arrogant message of judicial realpolitik[', 'The views of the presidency on the Burger Court and the Roberts Court could not be more different'
  • Bias (95%)
    The author expresses clear disapproval towards the Supreme Court's decision in Donald Trump v. United States, stating that it creates a unique prerogative for presidents to commit federal crimes with impunity. He also criticizes the appearance of partisan support from two justices in the majority and their insistence on handing Trump a sweeping victory despite not being able to bring all justices on board.
    • From this sweeping proposition, it somehow follows that the president is privileged to violate all federal criminal laws, so long as there is some plausible connection to his Official duties.
      • The Nixon justices must be spinning in their graves.
        • The president, although chief executive, may be required to give evidence in pending criminal cases brought on behalf of the country.
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication