Trump’s old legal arguments are coming back to haunt him.
This is part of Opening Arguments, Slate’s coverage of the start of the latest Supreme Court term. We’re working to change the way the media covers the Supreme Court. Support our work when you join Slate Plus.
Back when Donald Trump was president, critics delighted in finding old Trump tweets that contradicted his new positions. We have now reached the next evolution of this phenomenon: Legal arguments Trump once made in court are coming back to haunt him. And the newest iteration of self-conflicting Trump arguments will be the most significant yet.
The tension will be front and center on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears oral argument in a pair of major cases. Both cases, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed, involve First Amendment lawsuits against government officials who blocked their followers on social media. Importantly, the officials have asked the court to adopt a legal position that President Trump advocated in 2020 when he, too, was sued for blocking critics on Twitter: that their social media activity was private, nonofficial action to which the First Amendment does not apply.
If the court’s conservatives agree with this view, they will preserve the control officials have over their social media accounts. Yet such a ruling would have another profound consequence: It would jeopardize Trump’s recently filed motion to dismiss his federal criminal indictment for election interference on the basis of so-called official immunity.
To see how, start with a basic rule concerning how the law applies to individual government officials. When they are doing their jobs, such individuals act under a trade-off. On one hand, because their actions are those of the government, they are bound to follow rules that limit government power, such as the Constitution’s prohibition against abridging free speech. On the other hand, the law also affords these officials a degree of immunity to protect them from the threat of litigation.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementSignificantly, both the Constitution’s limits and the immunity defense apply only when a government employee is acting as an official—not when they act as a private citizen. As the Supreme Court wrote in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the case that recognized presidential immunity from civil damages liability (but that did not address criminal prosecution), any immunity extends only to “acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of [the president’s] official responsibility.”
The big question, then, is how to know whether a president is acting pursuant to his official responsibilities or instead acting as a private citizen.
In Trump’s new brief claiming official immunity from prosecution, his legal team has advanced an extremely broad view of the president’s official responsibilities: They include actions he takes even if on “matters for which the President himself bears no direct constitutional or statutory responsibility.”
AdvertisementIt’s easy to see why such a sweeping definition of presidential job responsibilities is vital to Trump’s defense: The actions he is alleged to have taken to overturn the 2020 election do not fall within any normal sense of a president’s constitutional or statutory job description. No constitutional or statutory provision obligates a president to recruit false slates of electors, obstruct the congressional certification of an election result, or deprive Americans of their right to vote.
AdvertisementThe problem for defendant Trump is that his capacious view of the president’s official duties is the opposite of the position he and his lawyers advanced in the Supreme Court when, as president, he was sued for blocking his Twitter followers. Then, in 2020, Trump filed a brief in the Supreme Court arguing that he could be considered to be acting as a government official only if his action was “pursuant to [a] power which he is authorized to exercise by law”—which is to say, a power authorized by the Constitution or a statute.
Advertisement AdvertisementTrump’s briefs contain still more internal contradictions. Facing the threat of jail time today, Trump now argues that “making public statements on matters of public concern, including Tweets … is an official action” that triggers official immunity. Yet in his 2020 brief, Trump argued to the court that when he used Twitter “to communicate with the public about official actions and policies of his administration,” he was acting as a private citizen, not a government official.
The hypocrisy is apparent. When Trump was president, he wanted to evade liability for constitutional violations. So he argued that he was acting as a private citizen unconstrained by the Constitution. But now that he is a criminal defendant, he has reversed course because private citizens are not entitled to official immunity: Even his most private-seeming acts, he now claims, are “official” and thus immune from prosecution.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementRelated From Slate
Jeremy Stahl
Trump’s Four Latest Criminal Defenses, Each More Absurd Than the Last
Read MoreTo be sure, the social media cases now before the Supreme Court no longer involve Trump himself; the court dismissed the case against him as moot once he lost the 2020 election. But the political through line is evident: The partner at Jones Day who represents the public officials in one of the current social media cases is the same lawyer who represented Trump in his 2020 brief before the court on the same Twitter-blocking issue.
Popular in News & Politics
- We’ve Been Entertaining an Illusion About the Supreme Court. It’s Finally Been Shattered.
- Why David Pecker’s Testimony Was So Credible
- A Supreme Court Justice Gave Us Alarming New Evidence That He’s Living in MAGA World
- Think You’re Smarter Than a Slate Senior Editor? Find Out With This Week’s News Quiz.
The upshot is that the pending cases before the Supreme Court are about much more than the First Amendment’s applicability in an age of social media. They are cases that could also spell trouble for Trump’s defense team. For if the court agrees with the argument he once propounded—that the president’s official responsibilities should be construed narrowly—it will be difficult to see why the same rule shouldn’t apply to Trump’s claim to official immunity.
AdvertisementMoreover, even if the court rejects a narrow definition of official actionin the social media cases, that will do little to guarantee Trump’s success in his pending criminal case. There remain many other ways the court could reject his immunity defense, including the distinct possibility that such immunity is inapplicable in criminal proceedings.
The Constitution itself seems to suggest this conclusion insofar as it allows for an impeached president to be “subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment.” It would have been strange for the founders to enumerate those possibilities if presidents all along enjoyed absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
The law, in short, is closing in on the former president. And in the case of his effort to claim immunity from prosecution, he has largely himself—and his prior inconsistent legal positions—to blame.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:新闻中心)
- 提前谋划部署准备秋季开学
- Spotify just added full music videos
- Best gift card deal: A $100 DoorDash gift card is down to just $85 at Best Buy.
- Brand new black hole image will blow your mind
- Echo Dot (5th gen) deal — get it for $29.99 at Amazon
- The Analog Embrace: How Some Experiences Are Surviving the Digital Age
- Jony Ive and Sam Altman seek $1 billion for the "iPhone of AI"
- Russian regional delegation visits N. Korea
- Europe will launch a spacecraft to Jupiter. Here's how to watch.
- I Deleted All My Social Accounts: Three Weeks Without Social Media
- Looking Back at 2010: The Year's Most Relevant Tech Stories
- Wordle today: The answer and hints for March 25
- Older galaxies are more chaotic
-
Tesla issues recall for 9,100 Model X cars
Tesla issuing a recall for just over 9,000 cars is hardly a surprise these days, given that the comp ...[详细] -
Europe will launch a spacecraft to Jupiter. Here's how to watch.
Europe is about to send a spacecraft on an epic quest to study Jupiter's icy moons, a mission that w ...[详细] -
Windows 8: Why the Start Menu's Absence is Irrelevant
Editorial Although every product deserves healthy criticism, many opinions of Windows 8 seem to be b ...[详细] -
NK urges people to follow leader Kim Jong
This undated photo provided on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, by the North Korean government shows North K ...[详细] -
Black Friday GPU Buying Guide: November GPU Pricing Update
There's a lot to discuss in this month's GPU pricing update with some updates regarding Nvidia's upc ...[详细] -
Honduras footballer Elis remains in coma after head injury
BORDEAUX:Honduras striker Alberth Elis remained in an induced coma on Sunday after a serious head in ...[详细] -
Keeping Up With the Trump Trials: Michael Cohen drama and Mark Meadows granted immunity.
Keeping up with Trump’s court schedule is a dizzying task, since he faces two federal trials, a crim ...[详细] -
SpaceX launches South Korean satellite to new orbit
By subscribing, you agree to our Terms of Use and Policies You may unsubscribe at any time.SpaceX la ...[详细] -
近日,我市气温持续居高不下。气象学上,气温在35℃及以上时可称为“高温天气”。如果连续三天最高气温都超过35℃时,即可称作“高温热浪”天气。高温天气下,运动员、户外工作者、老年人、婴幼儿等都是容易中暑 ...[详细]
-
10 Massively Inedible Roadside Attractions
The Thanksgiving holiday is usually filled with festivities among family and friends, massive amount ...[详细]
- “精致小春姐”顾春芳:华丽白西装、镶钻水晶拖鞋,带来新兴凉果No.1
- Injured Alcaraz says he'll be ready for Indian Wells
- Looking Back at 2010: The Year's Most Relevant Tech Stories
- Europe will launch a spacecraft to Jupiter. Here's how to watch.
- [Herald Review] Tori Kelly thrills fans, hints her love for Korean artists
- 15 Places Improbably Frozen in Time
- NASA finds 4 of Uranus' moons likely have deep oceans