Memo to Constitutional Coalition Board Details Supreme Court Victory on Trump’s Presidential Immunity Case

Source: US Bureau of Land Management

In April, the Constitutional Coalition and former Attorney General John Ashcroft filed an amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) in the United States Supreme Court in the case United States v. Trump.

The appeal to the Supreme Court concerns the question of presidential immunity. More specifically, whether a subsequent president may criminally prosecute his (or her) predecessor, and current political rival, for official acts the previous president took while in office.

This amicus brief was not filed on behalf of either party – Special Counsel Jack Smith (hired by Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute former President Trump) nor on behalf of former President Trump.

Rather, this amicus brief was filed to defend the constitutional principle that a President of the United States, as the Nation’s chief executive, must have immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts the President takes during the President’s term in office.

Otherwise, the President’s fear of a subsequent political rival bringing a criminal prosecution after the President leaves office will impair the President’s ability to make those decisions necessary to protect our national interest and discharge the duties of the office of Chief Executive.

This does not mean the President is “above the law” or is unaccountable.  Quite to the contrary.  The Founders adopted a very specific method for holding the President accountable.

That method is in Article One of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution which provides that, after impeached by the House and conviction by the Senate, the President may be subject to criminal prosecution.

The Constitutional principle at issue in United States v. Trump transcends, Donald J. Trump individual and the immediate passions surrounding the 2024 Presidential Election.

How the Supreme Court decides this case could shift the balance in the Separation of Powers between the three branches of our government.  And, how the Supreme Court decides this constitutional issue will determine how future presidents fulfill their duty to act as the Nation’s Chief Executive.

The amicus brief former Attorney General Ashcroft and the Constitutional Coalition filed provides a historical context to this appeal that will assist the Supreme Court in answering this question. It is. not hyperbole to suggest that United States v. Trump is of a constitutional magnitude equivalent to Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision for the Court in Marbury v. Madison.

On July 1, the Supreme Court decisively overturned the lower courts’ decisions in the case of Trump v. United States, reaffirming the principle of presidential immunity for official acts taken during a President’s term in office.

The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and supported by a conservative majority, marks a significant victory for former President Donald Trump and a major setback for the Biden Justice Department’s efforts to criminally prosecute him.

Following the ruling, a memo was addressed to the Constitutional Coalition Board regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Trump v. United States. The memo, written by Atty. Thor Hearne, provides an analysis and summary of the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity.

You can read the memo below:

 

 

Photo of author
Jim Hᴏft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

You can email Jim Hᴏft here, and read more of Jim Hᴏft's articles here.

 

Thanks for sharing!