Chief Justice John Roberts issued the majority opinion, emphasizing that the president 'is not above the law'.
Supreme Court grants former presidents 'absolute immunity' for official acts.
The decision has significant implications, granting presidents definitive 'absolute immunity' from prosecution for core official acts and extending this protection to unofficial actions if they can be linked to an official act in some way.
The ruling effectively ends prospects for a criminal trial against Trump before the November 2024 election.
In a landmark decision on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents are entitled to 'absolute immunity' for official acts. This ruling came in response to legal challenges regarding investigations into former President Donald Trump's actions related to attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The court's decision prohibits prosecutors from using any official acts as evidence in trying to prove that a president's unofficial actions violated the law, except in cases where it is deemed unnecessary. This ruling effectively ends prospects for a criminal trial against Trump before the November 2024 election.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump himself, issued this historic decision. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the president 'is not above the law,' but acknowledged that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity for actions within their conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
The ruling also stated that presidents are entitled to at least a presumptive immunity for acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility. This decision has significant implications, as it grants presidents a definitive 'absolute immunity' from prosecution for core official acts and extends this protection to unofficial actions if they can be linked to an official act in some way.
The ruling was met with criticism from some quarters, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) threatening to file articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court over the decision. However, it is important to note that this ruling does not grant presidents immunity for unofficial acts or actions that are clearly criminal in nature and fall outside their constitutional authority.
As a neutral journalist, I will continue to report on developments related to this story as they unfold. It is crucial for the public to remain informed about the legal proceedings surrounding former President Trump and the implications of this Supreme Court decision.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatened to file articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court after their ruling on former President Trump’s immunity.
Ocasio-Cortez did not clarify who in particular she intends to impeach.
Accuracy
,
The Supreme Court granted former President Donald Trump’s wish of having ‘absolute immunity’ from prosecution for core official acts.
Deception
(0%)
The author, Danielle Wallace, uses emotional manipulation by quoting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's statement that the Supreme Court has become 'consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control' and that it is an 'assault on American democracy'. She also quotes House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stating that the ruling sets a 'dangerous precedent for the future of our nation'. These statements are emotionally charged and manipulative in nature, as they aim to elicit strong negative emotions from readers towards the Supreme Court's decision. Additionally, Wallace selectively reports by only mentioning Democratic reactions to the ruling and ignoring any potential Republican reactions or perspectives.
House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution.
Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy.
The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(80%)
The author, Danielle Wallace, uses language that depicts the Supreme Court's ruling as an 'assault on American democracy' and a 'dangerous precedent for the future of our nation'. She also quotes Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stating that the Supreme Court has become 'consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control'. These statements express a negative bias towards the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.
Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy.
The Supreme Court granted former President Donald Trump’s wish of having ‘absolute immunity’ for core official acts.
Trump gets ‘at least a presumptive immunity’ even for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.
The president is more than a person, according to Roberts.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court granted former President Donald Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for core official acts.
President Trump’s actions related to pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overturn the government were considered ‘official acts.’
Trump argued that talking to advisers or making public statements were also ‘official acts.’
The Supreme Court determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are ‘unofficial.’
Deception
(30%)
The article by Zachary B. Wolf contains selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author only reports details that support the author's position, implying that the Supreme Court's decision grants presidents 'absolute immunity' and places them 'in a different system of justice than other Americans.' This is not an accurate representation of the court's decision, which only grants a presumption of immunity for some acts and does not completely exempt presidents from prosecution. The author also uses emotional language to manipulate readers, such as 'elevating a president above the law' and 'guaranteeing that his criminal trial will not go to trial before the 2024 election.' These statements are intended to elicit an emotional response from readers without providing accurate information.
As far as they want, she says.
The Supreme Court granted presidents in general a definitive ‘absolute immunity’ from prosecution for core official acts and said presidents should be presumed immune for a much more expansive list of acts.
It also has the long-term effect of placing presidents in a different system of justice than other Americans.
The majority dismisses warnings about a president operating above the laws as ‘fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.’
Fallacies
(80%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting the Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in the majority decision. However, this does not constitute a fallacy as long as the author is accurately reporting the content of Roberts' opinion. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Supreme Court's decision as 'elevating a president above the law', but this is an opinion and does not necessarily equate to a logical fallacy.
]The majority dismisses warnings about a president operating above the laws as [fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals].[/
It’s more important to protect the president from political prosecutions, the court says.
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses a clear bias towards the Supreme Court's decision in favor of former President Trump by using language that depicts the decision as placing presidents 'above the law' and criticizing it as an 'atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity'. The author also implies that this decision makes it difficult to imagine what might be considered 'unofficial conduct' on the part of the president.
As far as they want, she says.
The majority pays lip service to the idea that presidents are not above the law but it then proceeds to place former Presidents beyond the reach of the federal criminal laws for any abuse of official power.
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents are entitled to ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts.
President Trump’s actions related to pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government were considered ‘official acts.’
Trump argued that talking to advisers or making public statements were also ‘official acts.’
The Supreme Court determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are ‘unofficial.’
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(0%)
The article makes several editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation to convey the author's opinion that the Supreme Court ruling granting absolute immunity to presidents is a dangerous precedent. The author also engages in selective reporting by focusing on the negative implications of the ruling while omitting any discussion of its potential positive aspects.
Republics fall because most citizens are willing to give it away.
Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight year crime spree, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable.
There is no way to change that outcome in the short term. In the long term, the only way to undo the authoritarianism the court has just ushered in is to expand the Supreme Court.
Fallacies
(65%)
The analysis contains several informal fallacies and appeals to authority. The author makes inflammatory statements about the Supreme Court justices and their decision, using strong language such as “welp, Donald Trump won” and “essentially, all he has to do is claim that everything he did was part of his “cofficial” duties, and the Supreme Court provided no clear method or evidentiary standard that can be used to challenge that presumption.” The author also appeals to authority by quoting legal jargon and referencing legal experts without providing their own analysis or evidence. Additionally, there are several examples of dichotomous depictions, such as describing the decision as “ushering in an authoritarian regime” and stating that “the answer cries out from the abyss of history is that most people, in real time, don’t care.”
The Supreme Court justices pose for their official portrait... (Alex Wong / Getty Images)
Bias
(0%)
The author expresses clear political bias by stating that the Supreme Court ruling is 'authoritarian' and that it 'ushered in' an end to republican self-government. The author also uses language that depicts the justices as having given the president 'the power of a king'.
Republics fall because most citizens are willing to give it away.
The Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for the first time.
Chief Justice John Roberts insisted that the president ‘is not above the law.’ but stated that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
The ruling prohibited prosecutors from using any official acts as evidence in trying to prove a president’s unofficial actions violated the law, except in the case of Justice Amy Coney Barrett who described this point as unnecessary.
A former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case.
Accuracy
President Trump’s actions related to pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government were considered ‘official acts’.
Trump argued that talking to advisers or making public statements were also ‘official acts’.
The Supreme Court determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are ‘unofficial’.
Presidents are now entitled to ‘absolute immunity’, which means they cannot be held accountable for any crimes committed while in office.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains editorializing and pontification by the author in the form of opinions from Justice Sotomayor and Chief Justice Roberts. The author also engages in selective reporting by only mentioning certain aspects of the case that support their position. For example, they focus on how the ruling 'dimming chances' of a pre-election Trump trial, but do not mention that the trial could still take place after the election.
The protection afforded presidents by the court, she said, is 'just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless.'
The court's decision highlighted how the justices have been thrust into an impactful role in the November presidential election.
But the fact remains that it is almost impossible to happen before the election.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several instances of appeals to authority and inflammatory rhetoric. The authors use the words 'historic', 'muscular view of presidential power', 'king above the law' to describe the Supreme Court's decision, which is an attempt to persuade readers emotionally rather than logically. They also quote Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in full, which is not necessary for understanding the fallacy and can be seen as an attempt to sway readers towards her perspective.
The court’s decision highlighted how the justices have been thrust into an impactful role in the November presidential election.
,“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
,“In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
Bias
(80%)
The article reports on the Supreme Court's decision to grant former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution. The author does not express any bias towards Trump or Biden in the article, but there are some statements made by individuals that could be perceived as biased. For instance, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion is quoted where she states 'In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.' This statement can be seen as an extreme characterization and an attempt to depict Trump in a negative light. Additionally, there are quotes from Democratic politicians like Chuck Schumer and Biden's campaign who criticize the ruling. However, these quotes do not necessarily reflect bias on the part of the author as they are simply reporting on what was said.
In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
It undermines SCOTUS’s credibility and suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today.
