Sotomayor’s dissent: What did the Supreme Court Justice say about the Trump immunity ruling?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor skewered the 6-3 majority decision to give former President Donald Trump limited immunity in his Jan. 6 election interference case.
The US Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reject Trump’s broad claim of immunity along ideological lines for his actions to interfere with the results of the 2020 election. But the majority did grant the former US president limited protection from prosecution saying that he cannot be prosecuted for some actions closely related to his core duties as president.
The decision will further delay the criminal trial against Trump brought by special counsel Jack Smith which was due to begin back in March. Lower courts will now be tasked with determining precisely how the justices’ decision should be applied.
Sotomayor’s dissent: What did the Supreme Court Justice say about the Trump immunity ruling?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the majority ruling in Trump v. US “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.” Not holding back in her dissent, she said that the “decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency.”
“Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and unhesitating action’ by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more,” Sotomayor wrote. “The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power,” she continued.
“In the weeks leading up to January 6, 2021, then President Trump allegedly ‘spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won’... despite being ‘notified repeatedly’ by his closest advisers ‘that his claims were untrue,’” her dissent states. She goes on to lay out the claims that have been presented in lower courts which have ruled against the former president’s claim to immunity.
“The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint,” She added. “Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.”
“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she concluded her dissent.