CAUGHT BY ELECTION—INTEGRITY.ORG
The question of whether former President Donald Trump can assert immunity from federal election subversion charges is one that the Supreme Court is expected to explore in its last rulings of the term.
The nine judges will meet one last time before their summer holiday, even though they narrowly missed their unofficial deadline of the end of June. This will probably lead to a slew of court cases concerning their final rulings.
Regarding whether Trump is entitled to the broad immunity he seeks from special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion accusations, this is the most important current case.
Presidents would be constrained in their term in office, according to Trump, if they did not have immunity from prosecution upon leaving the White House. During April’s oral arguments, the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court appeared to support this position.
Trump and upcoming presidents may face serious repercussions from the outcome. When CNN’s Jake Tapper questioned Trump about taking revenge on political rivals, the president allegedly claimed that Joe Biden might be “a convicted felon with all of the things he’s done” during a CNN debate. After saying at first that his “retribution is going to be successful,” Trump launched a series of charges against Biden.
Trump’s post-election acts could be considered “private” and hence not eligible for immunity, depending on whether they were “official” presidential duties or not.
Two cases concerning social media and the First Amendment will also be decided by the court. Laws in Florida and Texas intended to stop social media behemoths like Facebook and X from restricting conservative viewpoints are being challenged in these lawsuits. These legal statutes forbid platforms
The Republican governors who passed these measures contend that it is essential to stop prejudice against conservatives on social media.
Although Elon Musk’s modifications to X’s c
More Read
ontent filtering standards have rendered the initial controversy somewhat moot, the case nonetheless presents significant First Amendment issues that may have far-reaching implications.
Whether curating posts constitutes protected speech, in the same way that news organizations are protected in their editorial choices, or whether social media platforms are only channels for content from third parties, permitting government regulation, is crucial to both arguments.
