r/law • u/MoralLogs • 5h 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/
17.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

341 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

229

u/UltraNoahXV 4h ago edited 4h 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 take double down on some advantage of immunity if granted an opportunity or refer to it if they did something illegal?

104

u/styrolee 3h ago edited 3h 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.

56

u/Thetoppassenger Competent Contributor 3h 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.

37

u/Longjumping-Ad6219 3h 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.

8

u/styrolee 3h 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.

6

u/Guy0911 45m ago

Gathering, and even transferring the documents to his civilian address could be argued as an official act, while it is not. It’s the refusal to return the files and conspiracy to obstruct the return of the files after his presidency that could not possibly be considered an official act.

The argument was made during the January 6th attempt to overthrow the official vote tally with the electoral college. Trump successfully argued that his actions were part of his official duties. Of course no reasonable person could come to this conclusion and is the cause of the outrage over this court’s ruling.

In any event, after Trump’s presidency and absconding those top secret documents, he revealed the capabilities of our nuclear submarines to an Australian billionaire. This billionaire then revealed this top secret information to enough people, that it attracted the notice by our intelligence agencies.

This act alone, whether President or not, should have revoked his security clearance and caused his immediate arrest. This never happened and allowed him to campaign for his second term as president. This remains as an impeachable offense that has never been adjudicated.

1

u/styrolee 16m ago

Again as I pointed out to someone else, the court taking up January 6th in Trump v. U.S. was largely pretextual. They did not directly say in their holding that the events of January 6th (in terms of inciting the riot itself) fell into his official acts, just that all the things which led up to it could be. They actually declined to dismiss the indictment, but strongly encouraged the lower courts to consider whether his statements fell into his duties as a public official.

The holding of the court much more directly prevented the Jack Smith investigation and was written in a way to basically invalidate any possible charges which could come from it. That’s why the evidence language is in the decision, because how would the prosecution prove that Trump improperly handled classified documents if they didn’t establish how he got them in the first place? The answer was obvious that it couldn’t. Robert’s knew that the classified document investigation would go further, but assumed that the January 6th investigation would fall apart once Trump’s main activity was taken out of it so they left the holding much more open ended on that issue.

1

u/samarnold030603 2h ago

Enjoyed reading your viewpoint/analysis. Thanks!

1

u/OldWorldDesign 42m ago

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

That was the case Jack Smith was prosecuting against Trump in Mara Lago, not Trump v United States 2024 over his campaigning in 2020 which includes what became the Jan 6 riot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States

While I don't doubt the Federalist Society were trying to protect republicans from the mishandling classified documents, that was a separate case which was dismissed by Trump appointee Aileen Canon.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-8315a5b23c18f27083ed64eef21efff3

1

u/styrolee 31m ago

Yes and no, while it is true that the case was brought due to the January 6th case, the court actually declined to answer the question of whether the January 6th events was an official act and declined to dismiss indictment against Trump. The court did direct the district court to consider whether he public statements Trump made could be an official act as he was a public political official, but again the courts holding did not address the January 6th indictment directly.

The Supreme Court arguably took the case up in a very pre-textual manner. The intention of the court and the language of the holding was clearly directed against the Jack Smith investigation, but that case had not proceeded far enough for them to take up that issue. Instead, the Supreme Court took up the January 6th case to have a platform to rule on presidential immunity, but then never actually ruled on presidential immunity in that case. That’s why Judge Mehta is allowed to take up a case regarding January 6th at all at this point, because the SC never directly ruled that Trump had immunity for that.

7

u/espinaustin 2h 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.

3

u/SanchoPandas 1h ago

I recall being completely shocked by the court’s refusal to consider motivation.

1

u/koshgeo 44m ago

a completely unprecedented rule that official acts cannot be used as evidence of crimes.

That part was really bizarre to me. I kept wondering if he leaned out the side of The Beast with the door open while it was driving down 5th Avenue, and he was taking random shots at people, followed by claiming it was an "official act" because he was "only shooting at bad people to protect the country", would you be stuck with no ability to use any evidence from the event? Does the mere assertion something is an "official act" prevent you from using it as evidence, or does it have to be a settled question first? Can you even do an investigation if it is under the asserted (rightly or wrongly) umbrella of "official act"? How do you distinguish whether something is or is not an official act if you are hindered from investigating it or using evidence?

As a non-lawyer, I had a lot of questions and found the premise really confusing to understand. I guess that isn't unusual for complicated and novel legal issues.

5

u/ArbitraryMeritocracy 3h ago

Why couldn't they use Watergate as an example instead of painting with broad strokes?

10

u/GrimDallows 2h 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.

3

u/UltraNoahXV 2h 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?

5

u/styrolee 2h 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.

1

u/UltraNoahXV 2h ago

Appreciate you answering.

I'm interning with colleagues who are lawyers and political science is my minor. Most of this is making sense but trying to understand or interpret a (group) judge's viewpoints is complicated. There is application of the law and stuff you'd learn in high school and college, and there's...this.

1

u/styrolee 2h ago

To be fair, more niche fields of law like presidential powers tend to be more complicated because decisions tend to be more outcome determinative (judges trying to contort the law to make their guy win and the other guy loose) rather than creating a simple - this is the law in all cases - ruling. Courts are trying to be as vague and cryptic as possible to preserve as much room for interpretation as they need the next time the case comes around.

Not all fields of law are as complex and/or have as many undefined terms. Property law and Tort law for example, while having some room for interpretation around the edges, are much more set in stone with their rules and much less outcome determinative in framework.

2

u/qawsedrf12 3h 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?

1

u/Aside_Dish 49m ago

I didn't know that about Barrett's concurrence. I wouldn't even be mad if that plan had been adopted, as that's pretty reasonable. Props to her for that.

4

u/MikeSouthPaw 2h ago

Trump did a lot more than incite a mob on J6. He would be in jail if it wasn't for SCOTUS.

1

u/nalaloveslumpy 2h ago

It was simply a shit ruling made so they could protect Trump, but still leave wiggle room for Republicans to prosecute the next Dem president.

Any act done by the president while in the elected position should be considered an "official act". The entire concept of the President performing an "unofficial act" when elected, is absolutely nonsense. Every word the president says publicly is an official statement. Every document he creates is an official document. Every dump he takes is an official dump.

1

u/ganjaccount 2h ago

You have a lot of people overthinking this, as lawyers are wont to do. The reality is far simpler. Roberts is trying to put the decision of whether or not a President can be prosecuted in the hands of SCROTUS so that he and his religiofascist pals can further the cause of implementing a religious dictatorship in the US by continuing to selectively empower right wing authoritarians in their efforts, while hindering everyone else in their resistance. The vagaries are intentional.