Clarence Thomas Questions Jack Smith’s Authority in Blistering Opinion on Immunity Ruling
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority as special counsel in his concurring opinion on the high court’s presidential immunity ruling.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.
Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.
The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Jack Smith’s DC case against Trump will be delayed again as it bounces back down to the lower court to Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Earlier this year the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump’s presidential immunity claim in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s January 6 case in Washington, DC.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
“In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in last month’s filing, according to CBS News. “To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.”
The Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor which means Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC is effectively delayed.
Clarence Thomas went off on Jack Smith in his concurring opinion and questioned his authority as a special counsel.
President Trump is separately arguing that Jack Smith’s appointment was unlawful in the classified documents case playing out in a Florida court.