Since publishing my last article, titled “A (Not-So-) Brief Overview of Donald Trump’s Legal Minefield” on April 30th, multiple updates have occurred across the numerous cases. Two have seen major decisions that have determined their outcomes while a landmark Supreme Court decision has rocked the country.
Cannon Ruling on Classified Docs
Judge Aileen Cannon has dropped the case concerning the classified documents stored at Mar-A-Lago, Trump’s Florida residence. Cannon’s authority over the case was highly controversial because Trump nominated her to become a federal judge. Trump nominated Cannon in his final year in office to the bench in a district that included his Florida home.
On July 15th, Cannon declared that special counsel Jack Smith’s involvement in the Classified Documents case against Former President Donald Trump was unconstitutional. Smith was appointed to the position by the US Justice Department, which Trump’s defense team argued was unlawful. They claimed that the man who appointed Smith, US Attorney General Merrick Garland, did not have the power to do so, and thus, Smith should not have been involved in the case.
This ruling remains controversial, as many call into question both Trump’s involvement in Cannon’s position as judge and the fact that courts have functioned under the 1974 ruling in the case United States v. Nixon. In this case, special prosecutor Archibald Cox was appointed by the Attorney General at the time to investigate the Watergate scandal. Although Cox’s validity as the special prosecutor was not called into question, the case was resolved in such a way that set a precedent for special prosecutors to be appointed by the Attorney General. Judge Cannon argued against this precedent, claiming that since Cox’s validity was not challenged, US v. Nixon is not binding. The lower courts that this case has gone through functioned under the above precedent, leading to much scrutiny over Cannon’s decision. Trump had worked to delay the trial as long as possible in the hopes of preventing a verdict before Election Day in November and has vocally praised Cannon for her ruling. Special Counsel Jack Smith has promised to appeal the decision, as has the Justice Department. However, the case will be significantly affected by the July 1 Supreme Court ruling that gives presidents near-immunity over what they deem “official” acts.
Conviction in Hush Money Case
Donald Trump went to trial on April 15, 2024, in New York City. A jury of 12 members heard arguments from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and from Trump’s legal team, consisting of Todd Blanche, Susan Necheles, and Emil Bove. After a month and a half of trial and two days straight of deliberation, the jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of attempts to impact the 2016 election by covering up hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress. This is the first time in history that a sitting or former president has been convicted of a federal crime. This amounts to a Class E felony, which is the least severe felony. However, these can still lead to prison time, as will be decided by Judge Juan Merchan. The original sentencing date was set for July 11, mere days before the start of the Republican National Convention. However, due to the Supreme Court ruling detailed below, the sentencing date has now been moved to September 18th. After the verdict was announced, Trump called the trial “rigged, disgraceful” and said that “the real verdict is going to be November 5th by the people.”
Supreme Court Immunity Ruling
On July 1st, the Supreme Court ruled that US presidents can not be prosecuted for any “official acts” while in office without significant challenges. The ruling describes a “presumptive immunity” for any official act performed by an acting president, leading to an extra set of difficulties for anyone attempting to punish a president for their actions. The case came to the Supreme Court concerning Donald Trump’s actions during and following his 2020 Presidential Election loss to Joe Biden. This essentially gives Trump immunity to any charges brought forth for anything he did during his term as president.
Throughout history, one of the core tenets of the US government has been checks and balances that prevent any one figure from gaining too much power. We function not as an autocracy but as a democracy, with three branches of government created to counteract corruption and ensure the continuance of that democracy. However, the Supreme Court gave the president power to be above the law, and therefore immune to prosecution. President Biden spoke out against this ruling, saying that the US “was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America…no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.” Biden also stated that although “any president…will now be free to ignore the law,” he would “respect the limits of the presidential power.”
This ruling is widely seen as one of the current Supreme Court’s first official showings of support for Former President Trump, as the ruling was 6-3 with all six conservative justices voting in favor and all three liberal justices voting against it. This immunity ruling “presumptively” covers all “official” acts by a president, which as the court describes, includes his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
This will delay the federal election interference case because special counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump for his actions before, during, and after the January 6th insurrection. Due to the court’s vagueness and lack of clarification on the term “presumptive,” Smith’s path to a guilty verdict is uncertain. Additionally, the court did not define what is considered “official” versus “unofficial.” Both of these words are subjective and can be construed in many different ways by many different people. Smith could choose to try and prove that Trump’s actions were not “official,” opening up the doors to prosecute him as an everyday citizen. However, this would require proving that every piece of evidence he uses was an unofficial act, limiting what evidence he could use. This case is not necessarily shut down but will face intense challenges.
The immunity ruling will also impact the hush money case. Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business documents in an unexpected turn of the case. The verdict out of New York came on May 30, 2024, with the sentencing scheduled for July 11. However, that was derailed by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The events of this case occurred well before the 2016 election when Trump took office. Still, pieces of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution evidence were from his four years as president. The defense team will have the opportunity to argue that this evidence cannot be used by Bragg if it was part of an official act by Trump. The sentencing is now scheduled for September 18, 2024, unless the defense team can convince Judge Juan Merchen to throw out the above evidence.
The Georgia election interference case has seen significant delays and setbacks throughout its existence. The Supreme Court ruling has pushed a trial back even further than it originally was. However, the case will gain additional significance as the election looms closer. As Georgia State University Law Professor Michael Kreis puts it, “The ultimate question is whether his actions in Georgia were actions in furtherance of an official duty, or whether Trump was acting as Donald Trump, candidate for president.” This essentially means that Judge McAfee will have to determine whether Trump was attempting to overturn the 2020 election as President Trump or as the Republican nominee for President. Regardless, the trial for this case has been delayed numerous times and likely will not go to trial before the November 5th election.
Many of Trump’s legal troubles stem from his actions directly leading up to and directly following a presidential election. The hush money case focuses on his actions around the 2016 election while the Georgia election interference, classified documents, and federal election interference cases revolve around the 2020 election. As November 5th creeps up on us, we must remain watchful and do what we can to ensure a safe and honest Election Day, leading to an appropriate transfer of power to whoever may win. With neither major-party nominee currently serving as President, there will be a new Commander-in-Chief come January so the chaos of four years ago cannot be allowed to repeat itself. There is a pattern of behavior from Former President Trump, one that tells voters to be wary of his actions throughout the coming months.
