A close look at the recent Supreme Court opinions reveals how the tenure of former President Donald Trump has prompted the nation's highest courts to confront the issue of presidential power. The opinions, totaling nearly 120 pages, delve into questions surrounding the extent of a president's authority.
Throughout the opinions, there are references to past rulings related to Trump, including his susceptibility to state criminal investigations, congressional probes, and civil liability for the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
One significant case mentioned multiple times in the recent opinions is Trump v. Vance, a 2020 ruling that allowed state prosecutors to subpoena a sitting president as part of a criminal investigation. This case arose from Trump's attempts to resist a subpoena in a New York state inquiry into his business dealings.
The majority opinion in the recent Supreme Court case cited Trump v. Vance to highlight the weight of the presidency and the potential impact on the independence of the Executive Branch if the president were subject to routine criminal scrutiny. This discussion played a role in the court's conclusion that Trump has some immunity in a federal election subversion indictment.
Additionally, the justices referenced Trump v. Mazars, another Supreme Court ruling concerning Trump's resistance to a congressional subpoena. They also alluded to a significant decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Trump's potential civil liability for the events of January 6, as lawsuits were filed by police officers and lawmakers.
These cases collectively shaped the boundaries of presidential immunity from legal scrutiny, illustrating the complexities that the Supreme Court justices had to navigate in determining the extent of presidential immunity.
