Connect with us

News

How the Supreme Court's immunity decision affects Trump's legal cases

Published

on

How the Supreme Court's immunity decision affects Trump's legal cases

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that presidents have absolute immunity for their core constitutional powers.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that presidents have absolute immunity for their core constitutional powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that presidents have absolute immunity for their core constitutional powers.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court found presidents have absolute immunity for exercising their core constitutional powers and are entitled to a presumption of immunity for other official acts. The court also ruled that presidents do not have immunity for unofficial acts.

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman said he was “horrified” by the opinion and added “It seems to me to restructure and reconfigure the whole relationship between the executive branch and the other branches.”

Advertisement

The team at NPR’s Trump’s Trials podcast broke down what this decision means and how it may affect Trump’s legal cases.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump with attorneys Todd Blanche, left, and Emil Bove attends his criminal trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 29, 2024 in New York City.

Former President Donald Trump with attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove attends his criminal trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 29, 2024, in New York.

Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images

1. Core constitutional powers

The Supreme Court found that presidents have absolute immunity for “core constitutional powers.” This references certain powers given to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which includes being the commander in chief of the military, the ability to pardon individuals and appointing ambassadors and judges to the Supreme Court.

This means that even if the president does something that is considered illegal while exercising those core powers, he or she cannot be prosecuted for that action.

2. Official acts and presumption of immunity

The court also ruled that Trump “is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”

Advertisement

What is an official act? It’s the parts of the president’s job that don’t fall under Article II, like holding press conferences or speaking with foreign leaders.

Then there’s the presumption of immunity. The court is basically saying the president deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to immunity for official acts and, therefore, the bar is really high to prove otherwise. Litman said the path to overcome the presumption of immunity is unknown “because [the court] gave such sketchy guidance.”

What is known is that if an action is deemed “official,” DOJ special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the cases against Trump over federal election interference and classified documents, will have to prove that prosecuting said conduct does not infringe on the “authority and functions of the executive branch.”

3. Unofficial acts

The court did say there are actions that can be prosecuted, they just have to be unrelated to the president’s official duties. This likely won’t be a cut-and-dried situation when it comes to parsing out which of Trump’s actions were official or unofficial. To make matters more complicated, Litman explained:

“One big problem here is the court has said when you’re deciding — even if it’s an unofficial act — you cannot take into account any evidence of conduct that would be an official act.”

Advertisement

Meaning that even if the act is deemed unofficial and therefore open for prosecution, Smith will not be allowed to use certain evidence if that evidence is of an official nature. The court also ruled, “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” so the reasoning behind any potential criminal act conducted by a president doesn’t matter and cannot be presented in a trial.

“Even things that seem very clearly unofficial could be hard to prove that they are and could always give rise to an argument that they are [official],” Litman said.

4. How this applies to Trump’s legal cases

The court’s decision is a legal win for Trump. It further delays his federal election interference case, ensuring it will not go to trial this year. It also complicates the work of prosecutors in D.C., Florida and Georgia who are working on the other pending criminal cases he is facing. They will have to go through their cases and determine whether Trump does or does not have immunity related to 54 criminal counts he faces in the three remaining cases.

“For Jack Smith’s two cases [federal election interference and classified documents case], they’re hurting, but not certainly dead,” said Litman.

This decision is also impacting Trump’s conviction in the New York hush money case. Trump was scheduled to be sentenced on July 11 after being found guilty on 34 criminal charges. But that sentencing is now delayed until Sept. 18 at the earliest.

Advertisement

The bulk of the criminal actions in the hush money case did take place before Trump was president, but Litman, who attended parts of the trial, said some of the evidence against Trump is from actions after he became president. Trump’s defense team can now potentially argue that evidence should be thrown out because of the court’s ruling.

“I don’t think Judge [Juan] Merchan will credit those arguments enough to say there should be a new trial,” Litman said, speaking of the judge in that case.

News

Former Olympian pleads not guilty in reflecting pool vandalism charges

Published

on

Former Olympian pleads not guilty in reflecting pool vandalism charges

Former U.S. Olympian David Hearn (left) walks with his attorney Norman Eisen to speak to reporters and protesters gathered after his arraignment at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.

Finn Gomez/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Finn Gomez/Getty Images

Former U.S. Olympic canoeist David Hearn pleaded not guilty to damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in D.C. Superior Court Thursday morning.

Federal prosecutors charged Hearn with a single count of destruction of property causing more than $1,000 in damage to the pool.

Hearn has previously claimed, which his attorneys repeated during a short press conference outside the court, that he simply touched the water in the pool out of curiosity.

Advertisement

The Trump administration had just completed a $14 million renovation of the pool.

But shortly after the work finished, peeling paint and algae gathered in the water. The remodel has been largely criticized as a massive failure and waste of taxpayer dollars.

Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean released Hearn on his own recognizance. His next hearing is scheduled for Aug. 5.

Norm Eisen, one of Hearn’s attorneys, spoke to reporters outside of court following the hearing. He said the administration is using Hearn as a “scapegoat … for their own failures.”

“It is not a crime to touch the reflecting pool, to touch water in the United States of America,” he said.

Advertisement

Prosecutors say there is a host of evidence against Hearn.

This is a developing story.

Continue Reading

News

Three more people charged with damaging Reflecting Pool after Trump’s multimillion-dollar restoration | CNN Politics

Published

on

Three more people charged with damaging Reflecting Pool after Trump’s multimillion-dollar restoration | CNN Politics

Three more people have been criminally charged with destruction of property at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Officers say they detained Cameron Thiers, Sophie Dennison-Gibby and Justin Carreno one Saturday afternoon in June and described in court documents witnessing them peeling and removing pieces of blue paint from the Reflecting Pool.

One officer “witnessed Carreno reach down into the reflecting pool and pull up a piece of the blue paint,” according to the court documents.

The officer who detained Dennison-Gibby “found 1 additional piece of the reflecting pool liner” in her purse, the documents said.

All three incidents were recorded on the officers’ body worn cameras, they said in the court documents.

Advertisement

Several “partnering law enforcement agencies assigned to the Reflecting Pool” working with US Park Police were involved in detaining the two men and one woman — including officers from Texas, Oklahoma, Montana and California.

One of the officers said in court documents that Thiers “admitted to removing a piece of blue sealant from the Reflecting Pool and still had it in his hand when I made contact with him.”

The three defendants were arraigned in court Wednesday and pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor charges of destruction of property with a value less than $1,000. The judge ordered them to stay away from the Reflecting Pool.

Lawyers for Thiers and Dennison-Gibby declined to comment. CNN has reached out to Carreno’s attorney.

If found guilty of destruction of property, the defendants could be fined up to $1,000 and face a maximum of 180 days behind bars.

Advertisement

The New York Times first reported that three additional people had been charged with damaging the Reflecting Pool.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that vandals caused major damage to the pool by gashing the lining after his administration spent more than $14 million on renovations, though he has not provided evidence to support that claim. The officers who charged Carreno, Thiers and Dennison-Gibby did not accuse them of gashing the lining.

Former Olympic canoeist David Hearn was indicted by a grand jury in Washington, DC, last week for allegedly damaging the Reflecting Pool. Hearn — unlike Carreno, Thiers and Dennison-Gibby – was charged with destruction of property with a value of more than $1,000 which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, if convicted. He is set to be arraigned in court Thursday.

Crews began draining the Reflecting Pool over the weekend to make repairs, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, for the second time in three months.

The move comes after weeks of problems – algae blooms, green-hued water, a chipping bottom and the administration’s allegations of vandalism – that have plagued the iconic landmark, making its woes the subject of national interest.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Published

on

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on Sept. 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, Calif. Barrett discussed and signed copies of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.

Mario Tama/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Even as the Supreme Court was handing down one legal thunderbolt after another last week, the justices were quietly releasing their annual financial reports. Justice Samuel Alito was the only sitting justice to request an extension, which he has done for 15 years. The disclosures do not give a complete account of the justices’ total income and wealth, but they give insights into their concertgoing, guest professorships and even their involvement in youth sports.

In addition to their salaries, much of the justices’ reported income came from their book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the pack earning more than $1.1 million last year for a total of roughly $4 million since her memoir, Lovely One, was published in 2024.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy also reported income from published books. Earnings from their books ranged from $849,000 for Barrett, to $300,000 for Gorsuch and $88,000 for Sotomayor, whose books include her 2013 autobiography and five children’s books. Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously earned $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir, listed no publisher payments last year, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of 13 co-authors of a 2016 legal treatise, also received no payments last year. Kavanaugh is said to be working on a memoir but he listed no payments for the anticipated book. Alito does have a book coming out in the fall, but with his financial report still outstanding, there is no data on how much he was paid for the work in 2025.

Advertisement

The only two sitting justices who have not written books are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.

Many justices also earned income from teaching at law schools. Roberts reported income from New England Law, located in Boston, and Gorsuch reported teaching income from George Mason University in Virginia. Thomas taught classes at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and Barrett and Kavanaugh taught at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett graduated from the school and began teaching there 23 years ago; Kavanaugh has family connections to Notre Dame.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending