Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 12:21 PM Jul 2020

FYI: While Vance was 7-2, the Court was UNANIMOUS in rejecting Trump's blanket immunity claim

Thomas: "The President first argues that he has absolute immunity from the issuance of grand jury subpoenas during his term in office. This Court has recognized absolute immunity for the President from “damages liability predicated on his official acts.” But we have rejected absolute immunity from damages actions for a President’s nonofficial conduct, and we have never addressed the question of immunity from a grand jury subpoena. I agree with the majority that the President does not have absolute immunity from the issuance of a grand jury subpoena." (citations omitted).

Alito, in a more round about and convoluted way (probably intentionally), also recognized that a sitting president could be subject to a subpoena. But both Alito and Thomas believed that the Court should have more carefully analyzed whether in this particular case, the subpoena would impose an undue burden on his ability to carry out his job.

This is HUGE. On the most important issue in the case - whether Trump is above the law - the court UNANIMOUSLY said NO!

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FYI: While Vance was 7-2, the Court was UNANIMOUS in rejecting Trump's blanket immunity claim (Original Post) StarfishSaver Jul 2020 OP
Every bit the slap down of Barr as it is Trump... n/t hlthe2b Jul 2020 #1
Yep MoonRiver Jul 2020 #6
Take that Barr. safeinOhio Jul 2020 #2
Recommended Mike 03 Jul 2020 #3
Is making the President cry an "undue burden"... Thomas Hurt Jul 2020 #4
Probably leftieNanner Jul 2020 #10
Thank you for pointing that out. That was traitortrump forcing that argument empedocles Jul 2020 #5
Kick and thanks for this!! Leghorn21 Jul 2020 #7
K & R chia Jul 2020 #8
Yes, but it's a moral victory underpants Jul 2020 #9
I object to Alito's and Thomas' reasoning. grumpyduck Jul 2020 #11
I think they just said the lower court should have examined Hortensis Jul 2020 #14
Does this over turn the DoJ policy Midnightwalk Jul 2020 #12
No StarfishSaver Jul 2020 #16
Question regarding the second paragraph, PRETZEL Jul 2020 #13
Yes - Alito and Thomas both discussed the issue of undue burden StarfishSaver Jul 2020 #17
There is no Divine Right of Kings in this country. Vlad's Soviet playbook goes only so far. Hekate Jul 2020 #15

leftieNanner

(14,997 posts)
10. Probably
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 12:35 PM
Jul 2020

Because he would have to reapply his makeup.

Think of all that important "Executive Time" that would be taken up with that!

empedocles

(15,751 posts)
5. Thank you for pointing that out. That was traitortrump forcing that argument
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 12:23 PM
Jul 2020

on a noticeably skeptical SCOTUS at oral arguments.

[Even thomas could not 'feel' his vote through that one.]

grumpyduck

(6,197 posts)
11. I object to Alito's and Thomas' reasoning.
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 12:46 PM
Jul 2020

"the subpoena would impose an undue burden on his ability to carry out his job." Irrelevant. Since when has he carried out his job?

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
14. I think they just said the lower court should have examined
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 12:59 PM
Jul 2020

the issue more thoroughly of whether undue burden would be imposed on a president.

We all know THIS president would consider time away from watching TV an undue burden.

Midnightwalk

(3,131 posts)
12. Does this over turn the DoJ policy
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 12:54 PM
Jul 2020

that says a president cannot be indicted by the DoJ. Or would that need a separate supreme court case?

Not that it matters while Barr is attorney general, but trying to understand the scope of the decision.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
16. No
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 01:59 PM
Jul 2020

This case doesn't specifically rule on whether a sitting president has blanket immunity from prosecution while in office. But the holding and the reasoning underlying it will make it much harder for a president to prevail in court if they try to avoid prosecution. I don't see how a court could uphold the notion of immunity and remain consistent with this precedent.

PRETZEL

(3,245 posts)
13. Question regarding the second paragraph,
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 12:54 PM
Jul 2020

if I'm reading this correctly, it almost sounds like a reference to Jones v. Clinton. And only going on memory, wasn't one of the defenses raised by President Clinton was that being deposed in the case would cause an undue burden? It almost sounds like that both Thomas and Alito almost agree with that line of defense.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
17. Yes - Alito and Thomas both discussed the issue of undue burden
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 02:12 PM
Jul 2020

The majority did, as well. The Court held that a president can contest a subpoena. One of the reasons can certainly be that the subpoena is overly broad or imposes an undue burden.

The difference between the two is that the majority ruled that a president could avail themselves of the same defenses that any other defendant can use, but there is no heightened defense for a president. Alito and Thomas believed that, while a president doesn't have blanket immunity in every instance, they should be given greater deference than the average person, by virtue of their position.

From the majority opinion:

A state grand jury subpoena seeking a President’s private pa- pers need not satisfy a heightened need standard, for three reasons. First, although a President cannot be treated as an “ordinary individ- ual” when executive communications are sought, Burr teaches that, with regard to private papers, a President stands in “nearly the same situation with any other individual.” 25 F. Cas., at 191–192. Second, there has been no showing here that heightened protection against state subpoenas is necessary for the Executive to fulfill his Article II functions. Finally, absent a need to protect the Executive, the public interest in fair and effective law enforcement cuts in favor of compre- hensive access to evidence.

Rejecting a heightened need standard does not leave Presidents without recourse. A President may avail himself of the same protec- tions available to every other citizen, including the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually include bad faith and undue burden or breadth. When the President invokes such protections, “[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive . . . should inform the conduct of the entire pro- ceeding, including the timing and scope of discovery.” Clinton, 520 U. S., at 707. In addition, a President can raise subpoena-specific con- stitutional challenges in either a state or a federal forum. As noted above, he can challenge the subpoena as an attempt to influence the performance of his official duties, in violation of the Supremacy Clause. And he can argue that compliance with a particular subpoena would impede his constitutional duties.


From Thomas' dissent:
In sum, the demands on the President’s time and the im- portance of his tasks are extraordinary, and the office of the President cannot be delegated to subordinates. A subpoena imposes both demands on the President’s limited time and a mental burden, even when the President is not directly engaged in complying. This understanding of the Presi- dency should guide courts in deciding whether to enforce a subpoena for the President’s documents.



In short, all nine of the Justices agreed that the president does not have blanket immunity from all subpoenas. But seven justices found that the president can use the same defenses as any other person to contest a subpoena. Alito and Thomas, while agreeing that the president isn't automatically immune from complying with subpoenas, would give a president much more deference in objecting to a subpoena than they'd give an average person. But, of course, it doesn't really matter what they think...

Hekate

(90,189 posts)
15. There is no Divine Right of Kings in this country. Vlad's Soviet playbook goes only so far.
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 01:11 PM
Jul 2020

At the moment, we still have a republic.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»FYI: While Vance was 7-2,...