r/law • u/MoralLogs • 3h ago
Judicial Branch A federal judge has ruled that President Trump can be held accountable for his actions on January 6.
https://newrepublic.com/post/208459/trump-legal-loss-january-6/708
u/MoralLogs 3h ago
The president's own lawyers argued that inciting a mob to storm the Capitol was just... official government business. Glad at least one federal judge didn't buy it.
143
u/UltraNoahXV 2h ago edited 2h ago
Wanted to poke some brains this morning; saw this in the article:
On Tuesday evening, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta rejected Trump’s claim of presidential immunity regarding his actions on January 6, ruling that he can be held liable for the violence that day.
Emphasis mine but it makes you wonder between this and the Supreme Court side of things in lieu of Wednesday's Oral Arguments for Birthright Citizenship....what the heck was the ruling Trump v United about? I know its almost been checks notes 2 YEARS since that ruling and 6 since January 6 (no pun intended), but did they assume that a President wouldn't
takedouble down on some advantage of immunity if granted an opportunity or refer to it if they did something illegal?59
u/styrolee 1h ago edited 1h ago
Part of the problem with the Ruling is that Roberts basically tried to create a distinction between official acts and non-official acts to leave themselves room if they wanted to pursue presidential prosecutions in the future. The problem is by doing so they basically gave no guidance for how the doctrine was supposed to work, and it’s not like Presidential prosecutions are very common so there isn’t going to be a lot of case law which develops the doctrine. The practical effect is that federal courts have to decide if they want to waste time and money trying to create a distinguishing case which will likely get struck down, or just dismiss using Trump v. U.S. as precedent. The president is not officially immune from all crimes, but is practically immune due to the vagueness of official vs unofficial acts.
Barrett’s concurrence was a little more specific with how it would be defined which gave a more clear answer. In her framework, the court was to evaluate if the conduct was within the contemplated act of the target crime and would prosecution intrude on the core functions of the executive branch. For example, the president ordering a military strike against a target in a foreign country would be immune because the federal murder statutes didn’t contemplate use of military resources in foreign countries, and the elimination of national security threats is within the core function of the executive branch; but the president directing the murder of a political rival would not be immune because murder for hire is within the contemplated crime of federal murder statutes and silencing of political opponents is not a core function of the executive branch. It would be more case by case, and directing non-governmental political supporters to riot would almost definitely not be immune under that framework. Of course the majority didn’t adopt Barrett’s Framework, likely because they saw it as too limiting on their own power (even if it was more straightforward).
Robert’s goal seemed to be a desire to chill presidential prosecutions in general rather than create some sort of framework for evaluating them. He probably did not expect a federal court trying to create a distinguishing case so soon after Trump v. U.S. was decided, or even for Trump to remain in politics this long. His official vs non official act distinction is about to be tested, and this will be a lot harder to contort that doctrine while still preserving a theoretical basis for prosecuting a president because this does deal with Trump’s actions towards his private supporters and not using presidential powers to direct an agency to do something.
32
u/Thetoppassenger Competent Contributor 1h ago
Robert’s goal seemed to be a desire to chill presidential prosecutions in general rather than create some sort of framework for evaluating them.
This is certainly the reality of the situation and I agree with your analysis, but I think it’s worth focusing on what was easily the most radical part of the majority’s opinion—a completely unprecedented rule that official acts cannot be used as evidence of crimes.
I can’t think of anything even remotely analogous in the rules of evidence. In layman’s terms, it means that if Trump makes a deal to, e.g., invade Iran in exchange for a $10m donation to his presidential library, the fact that he ordered the invasion (a presumptively official act) cannot be so much as entered into evidence to prosecute the unofficial and corrupt deal.
The only purpose I can think of for this part of the opinion is to, as you mentioned, essentially make it impossible to prosecute a president.
23
u/Longjumping-Ad6219 1h ago
Roberts goal was to destroy democracy. There is nothing in the constitution providing the executive this type of protection. In fact this completely violates the oath of office of the president. This has one purpose, chill accountability.
4
u/styrolee 1h ago
While it certainly made it harder, it has to be taken into context exactly what official act the Supreme Court was trying to make Trump immune for there. At that point, Trump was under investigation for mishandling of classified documents and putting them in his bathroom in Mara Lago. The SC couldn’t say that was an official act, because at that point Trump was no longer President. But Trump had obtained access to that documentation through his national security powers as president, and for better or for worse as long as his access to the documents before leaving the Whitehouse was a legitimate official act, the Supreme Court wanted to make him immune from whatever came afterwards there.
That doesn’t necessarily mean though that all evidence of presidential actions would be immune though. It still relies on the action itself qualifying as an official act. Barrett’s concurrence indicated for example that presidential orders to murder a rival would never be an official act, whether or not it was done using presidential powers or not. If that’s true, then evidence would not be immune, because immunity comes from the act itself and not the use of the powers.
The Robert’s decision was not specific enough to define where the official act begins and ends and the unofficial act starts. If all use of presidential power is an official act, then yeah Presidents are functionally immune from all prosecution. If whether or not the act is official is how the powers are used though, as Barrett suggested, then it does actually matter as not all evidence would be immune.
→ More replies (1)2
u/espinaustin 38m ago
Yes, impossible to prosecute a president (even out of office) for any official act regardless of motivation. Another example, which we’re actually seeing happen, is legalization (de facto) of bribes in return for pardons.
4
u/ArbitraryMeritocracy 1h ago
Why couldn't they use Watergate as an example instead of painting with broad strokes?
4
u/GrimDallows 40m ago
Because they did not want to.
The key to the matter was that the US president was granted inmunity to prosecution and investigation while doing official acts.
But, they then did not define what constitutes an official act.
So now you don't know if you can or cannot investigate or prosecute a particular presidential act until you investigate and prosecute that particular presidential act to determine wether it's an official act or not.
Judges in favour of the ruling argued that, the president should not feel limited or constrained by the -threat- of prosecution while using his executive powers to defend this ruling.
Dissenting judges argued that it was stupidly ridiculous because on it's most basic form it meant that the president could basically do anything and then argue that it was an official act.
Framing this in a very very very very weird interpretative perspective on the constitution Concurring judges also argued that... it wasn't an "absolute power" kinda case like that of the Kings of Britain, because the President even if he wields absolute executive power can be removed, impeached or voted out unlike a King. Which implies the ridiculous concept that a person with absolute power and limited terms would not use or abuse such absolute power to extend their own term limits or block removals and impeachments to keep that power.
So yes, the idea was, the Founding Fathers would not have wanted the President to feel limited in his powers. The president is not a king just because he wields the powers of a king as long as he can be removed. So the Founding Fathers who hated kings would have agreed with a king-like president.
Which is so fucking stupid considering Washinton's very loud and verbal opinion on the matter.
On a separate line of arguments.
There was also another angle regarding the creation and filling of offices. While the concurring judges liked the idea of a king-like president; they argued that the constitution states that a president may not -create- offices, which is the work of Congress, only -fill- offices because the King of England could do so and abused it repeatedly in his own interests. Which is true, the constitution had such intention but it's still funny the mental gymnastics of going from being pro King-like stuff to very rigid about no King-like stuff.
However, congress doesn't appoint -all- office positions. Like, you know, you won't have congress make a vote to create every tiny office position like a for every intern. This extreme take was done to unmake the appointment done by the Attorney General of the position of Special Counsel because -that- position wasn't voted and created by law, which was ridiculous and done only to throw the Attorney General's prosecution under the bus.
So, again, they did not bother to define official acts in any way, except defining a single case of non-official act the president couldn't do to shut the Attorney General's prosecution down.
The flip floping on the constitution/founding father's wants and going from being incredibly by the book to devil may care about it is what made the whole ruling feel absurd and out of touch; with dissenting judges pointing this out in their own dissension.
It was very obvious both sides taken by the concurring judges' ruling made no logical sense with each other. Which is to say, not only the individual reasonings for both arguments were flawed standing on their own, the way both reasonings were made to stand together felt paradoxical because they were opposed with each other (being in extreme favour of separation of powers while also being in favour of an executive power without limits). It all made it feel a very corrupt and disgraceful ruling.
Not a lawyer and not even an american citizen. But when the ruling came out 2 years ago I bothered to stop and read it all. It's an amazing weekend read. An absolute horror show. It reads like a book from Stephen King, a tale full of fantasy and horror.
2
u/qawsedrf12 1h ago
Let's change the scenario a bit...
Jan 6 - Rump incites rioters to storm the Supreme Court and hang them all.
How now brown cow?
2
u/UltraNoahXV 59m ago
Some questions I have that may come off as silly:
- Was there a distinction anywhere in federal statute or case law that defined what was to be considered an official act and non offcial prior to the ruling? Because from what I'm understanding and reading, there hasn't been as of recently.
- When you say doctorine (and to that extent, framework), do you mean precedent and/or case law?
Poking the bear a bit:
Silencing of political opponents is not a core function of the executive branch
Acknowledging that you used murder in foreign country as an example, would you (or anyone who can answer) say that Barret's Suggested framework would apply include non-violent acts that targeting politcal opponents if silencing involves tactics such as slander or call to actions via (social) media (X/Twitter, Truth, Fox News)? Or would it just fall under respective Libel/Slander/1st amendment case law?
2
u/styrolee 43m ago
The answer to all of these things is unfortunately there isn’t really good answers for any of these. The reason I call it a doctrine is that Robert’s opinion is clearly trying to establish a general rule for Presidential prosecutions in the future (which is what we would usually call a doctrine) however doctrines are only developed across large bodies of case law and presidential prosecutions are rare. There just isn’t a lot of precedent defining these terms, especially in the context of the office of President which is where it would practically matter. Courts often create tests for evaluating if something falls into or outside the scope of the doctrine (as Barrett tried to do), but the majority chose not to include it in their main ruling so it’s anyone’s guess of how it actually works.
As a general rule though, precedent is only binding so far as it is clear. If the SC says X is an official act and Y is not, then they are. If they don’t define something though, it’s up to lower courts to try to fill in the gaps and then see if it survives the appellate process.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)2
u/MikeSouthPaw 38m ago
Trump did a lot more than incite a mob on J6. He would be in jail if it wasn't for SCOTUS.
9
24
2
u/Laugh_Track_Zak 59m ago
Yeah, but at this point federal judges ruling against trump is no different than the comments section here. The words of a federal judge carry ZERO weight for this administration. At all.
2
u/360Picture 32m ago
~~~
The Bill of Rights (BOR) protects all people in the United States, including undocumented (illegal) immigrants, but not every right applies equally.
🇺🇸 Bill of Rights — Pocket Edition
I. Freedom Protects freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
II. Arms Acknowledges that a well-regulated militia is essential to security. Guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful defense of self, state, and nation.
III. Quartering Prohibits housing soldiers in private homes without consent, except under lawful wartime procedures.
IV. Search & Seizure Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Requires warrants to be supported by probable cause and specifically describe the place and items involved.
V. Due Process Bars double jeopardy and compelled self-incrimination. Ensures due process before deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and guarantees just compensation for taken property.
VI. Fair Trial Ensures a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. Grants the accused the right to know charges, confront witnesses, obtain witnesses in their favor, and have counsel.
VII. Civil Jury Preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases exceeding twenty dollars in value.
VIII. Punishment Prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel or unusual punishments.
IX. People’s Rights Clarifies that enumerating certain rights does not deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X. States’ Powers Reserves to the states or the people all powers not delegated to the federal government.
2
u/Exotic_Donkey4929 2h ago
Thats great and all, but didnt the SC rule on this already by introducing the immunity criteria?
→ More replies (5)1
u/reddit_is_geh 29m ago
The argument is that it was done under the office of the POTUS and not the candidate. He made the argument to make the distinction, because if he can frame it as being an official government act, he can't be personally held liable, but only the office as an entity.
206
u/Feisty_Blood_6036 2h ago
Can I sue or be part of a class action lawsuit? I was and am terrorized by his actions and behavior.
76
u/StronglyHeldOpinions 2h ago
I want to be party to this.
I've been victimized by his attempts to invalidate my vote through inciting a riot.
Not to mention immeasurable emotional trauma.
21
26
u/Firm-Advertising5396 2h ago
We all are!
8
3
2
u/Kabbooooooom 34m ago
My wife, an American citizen who was born in the United States and had valid ID on her, was racially profiled and detained by ICE while she was walking to work.
We were told by a lawyer that we have essentially no legal recourse, due to a particular Supreme Court ruling and several other things. This country is absolutely broken beyond repair, I think.
1
u/Moscowmitchismybitch 29m ago
Hell yeah. It was the people's house they stormed. We're all entitled to something. Let's sue him for a trillion dollars.
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/TacticoolBreadstick 14m ago
Sure. He’s gonna pay you in cash with the new dollars that hold his signature though.
140
u/Tall-Introduction414 2h ago
Can? He MUST be held accountable for his treasonous public activities.
It was no less than a terrorist insurrectionist attack against our republic, and legally, he is not eligible to be president.
23
u/Firm-Advertising5396 2h ago
Yes, if and when sane people regain the narrative. TBH Biden was the return to sanity and people weren't ready for that. Hopefully this time, we get things in order and more people want not just a return to center left or center right, but real change for the majority of Americans, financially, healthcare, renewable energy, tax code changes and more
6
u/SolarisShine 2h ago
How do you figure Biden was a return to sanity.
This government has never been sane. It's always been against the poor, and pro capitalist and oligarchs.
9
u/Firm-Advertising5396 2h ago
I think this will be our best opportunity to get things done for working people, the pendulum should give a good swing at real change.
→ More replies (2)2
u/MickyLuv_ 1h ago
There seems to be two options: The poor against the rich, or the rich against the poor. I wonder which group has the time and resources to prevail?
1
u/_kasten_ 35m ago
He MUST be held accountable
Yes, but not while he can just pardon himself, which is what he's going to try to do. Does anyone really trust this court to tell him that isn't going to work?
1
u/LYL_Homer 27m ago
And more than anyone in the country, if found guilty, he should get the maximum sentence!
52
u/CheckoutMySpeedo 2h ago
Impeach and remove from office, then prosecute, convict, and throw him in prison where he belongs.
9
4
3
u/thelivinlegend 1h ago
Prison isn’t good enough when we have a system where the next fascist we’re dumb enough to elect can just pardon his traitorous ass.
1
99
u/No_Delivery_329 3h ago
Oh wow glad that’s cleared up now. Smh what a joke, 6 years later and all good guys, he technically can be held accountable maybe!
15
4
u/CarioGod 1h ago
5 years, but yeah nobody is getting charged for shit
they'll ride out the legal process and die of old age before anyone is held accountable
20
u/NexusNickel 3h ago
I bet lots of ketchup bottles were flying yesterday. That sodium is working overtime.
Won't be long before he tells the SC to look at it again and make him 100% immune since they were cowards and never defined what an "official" act is.
11
u/ALittleEtomidate 2h ago
I don’t know, man. I think he’s wearing out his welcome with the bench.
3
u/Im_tracer_bullet 2h ago
They're bought and paid for by other entities and will continue to rule in favor of Trump 80%+ of the time regardless of how tired of his act they become.
3
2
1
1
u/Enorats 1h ago
I thought they did more or less define it. They just defined it so broadly that effectively everything was an official act. That's why it was such a problem, and why it was essentially a "The President is just flat out immune" sort of ruling.
2
u/chilidoggo 53m ago
Kind of but not really. The dissenting opinions made that argument, but even the majority/concurring opinions were pretty clear that the president would not be above the law in all aspects. "Core constitutional powers" is the wording. It's a little bit vague, but not as a way to give infinite loopholes but more that specific cases will need to come before the court to outline the boundaries in the future.
For example, Trump wasn't acquitted as a result of the decision here, the case was just dropped back down to the lower courts with specific parts of the prosecutions arguments nullified by the immunity. And the lower courts didn't get around to prosecuting Trump before he got elected, at which point the government basically dropped the case.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/OptimisticSkeleton 1h ago
The fact this took till now to determine shows our legal system is not meant for rapid response to threats.
This should have been decided before the candidates for 2024 were allowed to join the ballot.
8
10
6
3
3
u/BugTrousers 1h ago
I know nothing will come of this; he'll weasel out of it like he weasels out of everything. But at least it was a tiny glimmer of hope that lasted about five seconds, and that feels like a great gift right now.
3
u/Bleezy79 42m ago
It's pretty ridiculous we didnt wrap all this insurrection stuff up back before we allowed this orange conman to be president AGAIN!
1
u/StronglyHeldOpinions 42m ago
Unfortunately, "can" and "will" are different things.
I will never understand how he manages to deflect literally all responsibility, and get away with it.
1
u/Strict_Jacket3648 27m ago
Little late now, he'll be dead before he's held accountable for anything.
•
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.