Running SCOTUS thread

Jan. 6 ruling:

This was a case about whether a federal law that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct congressional inquiries and investigations can be used to prosecute participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The question comes to the court in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

6-3. Barrett dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.

 

Court done so we'll get Trump immunity on Monday.

 

6-3 on immunity.

The court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.

 

Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

 

The core constitutional powers are things like appointing ambassadors and foreign governments.

The court explains that it does not need to decide in this case whether immunity for official acts is presumptive or absolute.

The court in Part III of its opinion indicates that in this case "no court has thus far considered how" to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.

 

Moreover, Roberts continues, "the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis" and "did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial" -- and it wasn't briefed before the Supreme Court.

So the Supreme Court isn't going to make that determination now. Instead, it will send the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings, although it does offer some guidance.