Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

The Ricochet Podcast
3 Whisky Happy Hour
Beyond the Polls
GLoP Culture
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
Federalist Radio Hour
Not Dead Yet
Heritage Explains
Chicks on The Right
3 Martini Lunch
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
The Learning Curve
The American Idea
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
Hillsdale Dialogues
Madison’s Notes
Mom Wars
What the Hell Is Going On
Parsing Immigration Policy
Freedom to Learn
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
Giving Ventures
Who Funds that?
The Back of the Book
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
Gray Matters
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Glenn Show
The Libertarian
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert DoarRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
The Supreme Court has, kind of, decided the question of presidential immunity. No, the president (or former president) cannot be held criminally liable for official acts (those prescribed by the Constitution) and yes, he can be held liable for unofficial acts.
What they did not do is dive into the specifics of the Trump charges and delineate which acts were "official" and which acts were "unofficial," except for any communication Trump had directly with Justice Department officials.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts says, "The court sends the case back to the district court for it to determine other things, such as 'whether a prosecution involving Trump's attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"
And he adds, "Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized."
Update: The Court has remanded the case back to the District Court. Now it is up to Judge Tanya Chutkan to hold pretrial hearings with the prosecution and the defense and re-examine each of the charges Jack Smith has brought in order to determine which of these fall under the umbrella of "official acts." That is going to take time and almost assures that this case will not go to trial before the November general election.
Promoted by an EditorThis post was promoted to the Main Feed by an editor.
Discussion (57)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I read your title as Trump versus us--the people. And he's the only one for us.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
USA might be an alternative, or U.S.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
or permanent bureaucracy vs Trump
STAFF • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I find all of your takes on the court's ruling fascinating.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
"Kind of"? From the opinion of the majority:
Perhaps it is just difficult for some in our severely, maybe even dangerously, divided nation today who simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge any victory for President Trump. I, on the other hand, would, with great pleasure and pride in the gradual restoration of the American Rule of Law, term this - to use the word used by the Chief Justice- an absolute victory for the former President.
"Kind of", indeed. But then we are all familiar with the ancient legal doctrine: Reasonable minds may differ.
You're seeing five of 57 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.