Sotomayor’s dissent in #Trump immunity case is blistering throughout. Sometimes, the drier passages are the most withering. E.g, “It seems history matters to this Court only when it is convenient. See, e.g., New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022); Dobbs, 597 U. S. 215.” 1/ #LawFedi
More Sotomayor: “Indeed, Trump’s own lawyers during his second impeachment trial assured Senators that declining to impeach Trump for his conduct related to January 6 would not leave him ‘in any way above the law.’ … Now that Trump is facing criminal charges for those acts, though, the tune has changed. Being treated ‘like any other citizen’ no longer seems so appealing.” 2/
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson: “In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.” 3/
Sotomayor: “Today’s Court, however, has replaced a presumption of equality before the law with a presumption that the President is above the law for all of his official acts.” 4/ #LawFedi
Screenshot of a lengthy passage from #Sotomayor dissent in #Trump immunity case. In short: despite stating a difference between official and unofficial (private) acts, the Court’s treatment of official acts eviscerates the force of the supposed distinction. 5/
Sotomayor: “The majority seems to think that allowing former Presidents to escape accountability for breaking the law while disabling the current Executive from prosecuting such violations somehow respects the independence of the Executive. It does not. Rather, it diminishes that independence, exalting occupants of the office over the office itself.” 6/
Sotomayor: ‘The public interest in this criminal prosecution implicates both “[t]he Executive Branch’s interest in upholding Presidential elections and vesting power in a new President under the Constitution” as well as “the voters’ interest in democratically selecting their President.” … It also, of course, implicates Congress’s own interest in regulating conduct through the criminal law. … ‘ (cont.) 7/
‘… Yet the majority believes that a President’s anxiety over prosecution overrides the public’s interest in accountability and negates the interests of the other branches in carrying out their constitutionally assigned functions. It is, in fact, the majority’s position that “boil[s] down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers.’ 8/
Sotomayor: “Separate from its official-acts immunity, the majority recognizes absolute immunity for ‘conduct within [the President’s] exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.’ …Feel free to skip over those pages of the majority’s opinion. [! — HLF] With broad official-acts immunity covering the field, this ostensibly narrower immunity serves little purpose.” 9/
Sotomayor: “In this case…the question whether a former President enjoys a narrow immunity for the ‘exercise of his core constitutional powers,’ ante, at 6, has never been at issue, and for good reason: Trump was not criminally indicted for taking actions that the Constitution places in the unassailable core of Executive power.” 10/
Sotomayor: “Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding.” 11/#LawFedi
Sotomayor: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.” 12/
Sotomayor: “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. … With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” 13/13 #LawFedi