“No man is above the law”: Trump’s alleged “discrepancies with the acting Attorney General” do not violate the principle of ‘independence’

“Certain allegations–such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General–are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” he wrote. In other words, “Trump is … absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

There will be significant delays, and the odds of a trial before the elections seem remote. If Mr. Trump is elected, he could order the Justice Department to drop the charges.

“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” she wrote. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”

Roberts wrote that Trump was protected a lot more by the law than was realized, but he also undermined some of the charges against the president.

The chief justice said that a close analysis of the indictments extensive and interrelated allegations is required.

The case of a presidential insurrection ring: The 12th Circuit Circuit Court ruled that Mr. Trump had not violated the 14th Amendment

She gave examples: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. How do you organize a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Take a bribe in order to get a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

A sitting president does not need a lifetime get out of jail free pass, because the US has just one chief executive at a time, wrote a federal judge.

In March, the court unanimously rejected an attempt to bar Mr. Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which makes people who engage in insurrection ineligible to hold office. The court, without discussing whether Mr. Trump was covered by the provision, ruled that states may not use it to exclude candidates for the presidency from the ballot.

On Friday, the court ruled that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. Two of the four charges against Mr. Trump are based on that law.

The Supreme Court was asked to look into the case after the appeals court ruled against Mr. Trump. Sixteen days later, on Feb. 28, the court agreed to hear his appeal, scheduling arguments for almost two months later, on the last day of the term. Since that time, another two months have passed.

The case moved at a slower pace. Jack Smith, the special counsel that was overseeing the prosecution, told the justices that it was imperative for the public to know that the case was going to be decided by this court. He stated that only this court could resolve them.

Several of the justices seemed to have no interest in looking into the details of the charges against Mr. Trump. Instead, they said, the court should issue a ruling that applies to presidential power generally.

John Roberts was joined by his fellow conservatives on the court. Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“No court has thus far considered how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts,” he wrote, while chiding the lower courts for rendering “their decisions on a highly expedited basis.” He said the lower courts “did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial.”

Even after Judge Chutkan separates the constitutional wheat from the chaff, Trump could seek further delays, as immunity questions are among the very few that may be appealed prior to trial.