In a recent development, former President Trump is seeking to fundraise off his latest loss in court and is repeating arguments akin to his previous claims. While some argue that a president should have immunity to be able to effectively function, three federal judges have undermined these assertions in their recent ruling. The ruling is a blow to Trump's attempts to contest the election results, as the indictment against him alleges behavior that occurred during his candidacy rather than official presidential actions.
However, there are differing opinions on the clarity and effectiveness of the court's reasoning in the case. Some believe that the opinion was muddled in its analysis of where presidential immunity applies and where it does not. It has been suggested that a cleaner approach would have been to categorize Trump's actions as non-official, private behavior rather than official acts of the president. This perspective emphasizes that no official act of the president should involve criminal activity and that engaging in such behavior falls outside the realm of presidential duty.
With regards to the future of this case, speculations abound concerning the involvement of the Supreme Court. It is uncertain whether the case will reach the highest court in the land, as there are various potential routes that the court could take. One possibility is for the Supreme Court to allow the mandate of the Court of Appeals to issue, thereby granting the district court the ability to proceed while also considering and potentially granting a writ of certiorari on the larger issue at hand.
Another noteworthy aspect of this case pertains to the jurisdictional issue surrounding immunity. The Court of Appeals claimed jurisdiction to take an interlocutory appeal, which raised eyebrows due to an amicus brief arguing that the immunity issue should be decided after trial. Nonetheless, both Trump's legal team and Jack Smith, the prosecutor, expressed a desire to address the immunity issue immediately.
As these legal proceedings continue to unfold, another separate issue has emerged - Trump's legal team is reportedly planning to take a 14th Amendment case before the Supreme Court on Thursday. This case questions whether Trump can be on the ballot in all 50 states, given that some states have tried to remove or have removed him from their ballots. Trump has been present at other court cases but has decided not to attend this particular hearing at the Supreme Court, possibly due to feeling outnumbered by the nine justices, three of whom he had appointed during his tenure.
Observers are eager to see how the Supreme Court will approach Trump's case, as his expectations of his appointed justices may not align with their actual decisions. It remains to be seen how the legal battles involving Trump's immunity and his potential appearance on state ballots will play out in the coming weeks and months.
