In a Truth Social post dated 09:16 AM EST on April 25, 2024, Donald Trump stated that presidential immunity is essential for a president to function properly. He argued that without such immunity, the functioning of a president would be compromised, placing the United States in significant and persistent danger.
WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN GREAT AND EVERLASTING DANGER!
Donald Trump Truth Social 09:16 AM EST 04/25/24
— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) April 25, 2024
Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany commented that former President Donald Trump should feel optimistic after the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on his presidential immunity case. McEnany highlighted that justices like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch seemed to suggest remanding the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings, which could be a positive sign for Trump.
She noted that both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch raised the possibility of further proceedings at the district court level, indicating a division between private and official acts that could require more analysis. Amy Coney Barrett also considered allowing litigation to proceed with official acts while continuing with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump for private acts.
McEnany referenced a precedent, the Vance v. Trump case, where the court denied Trump’s claim of absolute immunity but remanded it to a lower court for further review. She explained that remanding could lead to delays, noting that the Vance case took about eight months for a resolution. An eight-month delay could benefit Trump, especially if he wins the presidency in November, allowing him to potentially dismiss Jack Smith and the indictments against him.
This interpretation suggests that the court’s direction towards remanding could extend the timeline, creating significant implications for the ongoing cases and potentially allowing Trump to use his presidential power to influence outcomes.
You had Kavanaugh who said “there are some private acts, there are some official acts, that analysis should be undertaken by the district court.” And John Sauer said, “yes, of course.” Then you go to Gorsuch, “you left open the possibility of further proceedings.” Yes, further proceedings. That’s four people who brought up potentially remanding it.
Amy Coney Barrett, however, brought up the possibility of allowing litigation to play out with the official acts and allowing Jack Smith to continue forward on the private acts. All of this to say: Why is this so important, the issue of remanding to a lower court? There was a case, it was called the Vance case, Vance v. Trump. It was about Cy Vance, ironically, trying to get documents for the Stormy Daniels case. And Trump said, “no, I have absolute immunity.” The court said no, 7 to 2, you don’t. But they remanded it to a lower court for further proceedings. That was July of 2020, the outcome didn’t come until eight months later in February of 2021. So if you get a remand, you potentially, with that precedent, could get an 8 month delay.
