With Supreme Court’s historic Trump immunity decision, how did California Democrats react?
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal case against former President Donald Trump for trying to overturn 2020 election results while in office survived a Supreme Court decision released Monday.
The Supreme Court ruling concerned presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. California Democrats expressed fears of presidents essentially becoming kings after the decision landed on Monday.
“It must now be presumed that the president, as king, is immune from accountability,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, wrote sarcastically on X.
“On the week of the 4th of July, when we celebrate our Founders declaring Independence from a King, the rogue Supreme Court granted official immunity to a rogue former president, upending the American principle that no one is above the law,” wrote Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco.
Schiff and Pelosi were leaders in the efforts to impeach Trump twice.
The ruling, split 6-3 on ideological lines, is the first time the Supreme Court has considered whether an ex-president can be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while serving in the Oval Office.
Presidents have “absolute” immunity for clearly official acts and at least “presumptive” immunity for all official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts, the ruling read.
The decision sends Trump’s case back to a lower court to determine whether some of his purported conduct was official or unofficial, and when or if the former president will go to trial for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
The distinction between “absolute” and “presumptive” immunity comes from whether the official act is exclusive to the constitutional powers of the president or shared by the other law-making federal branch: Congress.
California lawmakers react to immunity ruling
California progressives were quickest to react to the ruling on Monday. Some split on raising alarms.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision on Donald Trump’s immunity claim is far worse than anything I imagined... Effectively giving a president immunity for any crimes committed while in office as long as that president can plausibly claim the action was taken in some form of official capacity,” wrote Schiff, a California candidate for U.S. Senate who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial.
“Don’t panic on Trump immunity case,” wrote Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Castro Valley, who served as a House manager in Trump’s second impeachment proceedings after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. “Jack Smith will argue Trump’s actions were not ‘official acts.’ There’s precedent on this from a J6 civil case *that I know a thing or two about* that was unanimously upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is not a Trump victory.”
“Today, former President Trump’s handpicked justices have cast aside our nation’s bedrock principle of the rule of law, afforded future presidents carte blanche to abuse the powers of their office for political and personal gain, and laid the foundation for Donald Trump to have absolute authority in a potential second term,” Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement.
The Democrat added, “Before today, America’s judicial system was rooted in the simple but fundamental principle that no one is above the law. Not Congress, not the courts, and not even the President of the United States. Today’s decision turns that most fundamental principle on its head.”
What the Supreme Court ruled
Five justices filed opinions in the case. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent for the liberals.
“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Roberts wrote. “The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion with the majority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion agreeing with the majority for the most part. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote an opinion concurring with the dissent.
“In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor wrote, adding she had “fear for our democracy.”
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, was asked whether Trump has immunity from federal charges for trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election and retain power.
A Washington, D.C., federal grand jury indicted Trump in August on four charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against the right to vote and have one’s vote counted.
What Donald Trump and Jack Smith argued
Trump and his legal team claimed that he is immune from four felony charges alleging the former president conspired to reverse his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee, says that these efforts were part of his presidential duties and that ex-presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken as part of official duties.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social Monday. “PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
Smith, who leads the federal case against Trump, and his legal team said that shielding Trump from prosecution would put presidents above the law.
Roberts wrote that both Trump and Smith’s legal teams took overly broad views about the extent of immunity.
Two lower courts sided with Smith. Trial proceedings stalled in Smith’s case while the Supreme Court considered this case.
Even delaying proceedings is a win for Trump, who is hoping not to deal with more prosecution before the November election.
The election-interference indictment was not the only one against Trump, but the Supreme Court ruling is unlikely to affect cases concerning classified documents or the New York hush money trial conviction.
