Decision not displaying...pdf of decision fails to display???

I just added:

[[File:SCOTUS No. 23–939 DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES.pdf|thumb|Supreme Court decision which grants the President of the United States: "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."]]

immediately following: ===Ruling===

I don't understand why the pdf is not displayed.

Perhaps this is a caching issue with my browser.

Argh. --CmdrDan (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling is linked to in the External Links section, which is where it should be, and so I have removed your edit. GroundclothDilemma (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Dean

John Dean's reaction to the ruling is particularly significant given his connection to the Watergate scandal. However it keeps getting removed by the same editor simply because it was a tweet. But it is what John Dean which is significant, not the platform it came from. --Plumber (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki rules are against using Twitter and primary sources. If you can find an article mentioning Dean’s statement then it can be added. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not theleekycauldron, who reverted your addition initially. Nor am I 3Kingdoms, who reverted it after I did. Please don't add this back in until you have gained consensus. This is a very high profile SCOTUS decision, probably the biggest of this term. There will be an abundance of prominent, famous political and legal figures making statements on this case on twitter and elsewhere. Adding any particular one of them is highly questionable, let alone doing so on the basis of a tweet. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a secondary source. Bremps... 04:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK then we can use that source. --Plumber (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A similar statement comes from Nick Ackerman, an Assistant Special Watergate Prosecutor. How the US Supreme Court ruling on former president’s immunity could affect Trump cases. DW News. Event occurs at 8:55. Erkcan (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Ackerman does not have a Wikipedia page of his own but that does work nicely with Trump's legal team requesting his conviction be overturned. --Plumber (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall John Dean writing in early 2004 that George W. Bush was going to suspend the Constitution and the 2004 elections. Given that, I conclude that John Dean is WP:Fringe. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tfdavisatsnetnet Do you have a source for that? WP:Proveit Seananony (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find it - believe me, I would have linked to it - but either it has been removed or 20 years of internet detritus has clogged the search engines. Please take my comment as only a warning. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former or Incumbent?

The case spectacularly fails to specify if it encompasses the sitting president. Delineating this would be a boon to this article. ManOfDirt (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added, with a source. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged official acts

The article lede states:

It is the first time a case concerning criminal prosecution for official acts of a president was brought before the Supreme Court.

Given the facts of the case and the reasoning of the Court majority, this line is now questionable.

  • The Trump legal team argued that Trump was acting in his official capacity. Given the fact that most election law is invested in the states, this is questionable.
  • The prosecutors did not challenge this argument, they failed to raise the questionableness of the official status.
  • The Supreme Court, by making a distinction between official and unofficial acts, and then remanding the case back to the District Court, has left open a prosecution on the unofficial acts argument.

Therefore, this sentence should read:

It is the first time a case concerning criminal prosecution for alleged [or] purported official acts of a president was brought before the Supreme Court.

Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. It would have been nice if the source (or any source) would also make that point, because we could include it. Wikipeida of course runs off the sources, WP:NOTTRUTH. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the problem. As I see it, the RS's will soon wake up and realize that remanding implies the case may continue, and the text of the ruling states it can continue against unofficial acts. To me this is WP:Obvious, but then that's just me. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an Update Template to the articles for Jack Smith (lawyer) and Smith special counsel investigation, since any secondary source regarding his response to continuing the case in response to this ruling may make the point I made. Right now those articles are written as if Trump v. United States (2024) never happened. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vague meaning of Former President

Does former president include presidents who are impeached and removed from office? This article should clarify that the opinions pertains only for former presidents who are not removed from office. [1] . There has to be modifications made to leade and ruling for clarity.


207.96.32.81 (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://reason.com/2024/07/01/supreme-courts-presidential-immunity-ruling-could-shield-outrageous-abuses-of-power/
I've read the source and I don't see where it says what you think it says. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a wp:bold edit which includes the quote from the opinion. I can't add the full quote without it being WP:OR.

Here is what the article from Reason referenced -

The text of the Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity. It states that an impeachment judgment “shall not extend further than to removal from Office,

and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The Clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what

conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted.

— Trump v. United States, Page 32,33

From that quote, a former president is not liable or can't be prosecuted for official acts unless he is convicted in an impeachment. This opinion is for former presidents not convicted in an impeachment.

207.96.32.81 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you cite of Roberts is him quoting the Constitution in his reasoning, nothing more. If you read the decision, you will see he cites it is part of his reasoning; justices mention all kinds of cases and laws from the past, to demonstrate their reasoning, but that is not the court's ruling, per se. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No the article is a secondary source - Reason. Is Reason an unreliable source? I am not citing the opinion WP:primary in my edit. Anyway, it should be included under the Ruling section what Roberts himself said "By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted." This is what Roberts said he is addressing in this opinion which I used a secondary source for. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on meaning of former President

Should the lede be rewritten to clarify that "former President" does not include presidents convicted in an impeachment?

207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An impeachment discussion is probably just a distraction as no impeachment has ever resulted in conviction and removal from office, even in the extreme case of a recent failed coup, as in 2021. There have been five impeachments in American history, two of them against the convicted felon Trump - but no convictions. Discussion of impeachment belongs later, when covering other legal technicalities and context. ThomasPaine2024 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

  • Support - As the article from Reason[1] gives context on the Impeachment clause in the opinion lacking in other reliable sources. Robert states an opinion about the Impeachment clause which is currently not included in the Ruling subsection of this article.

    The Clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted.

    — Trump v. United States, Page 33
    In the opinion syllabus, the former president implies a president who is no longer president and had not been convicted in an impeachment.

    The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution.

    — Trump v. United States, Page 7
    This context is necessary in understanding what former president is.

    When may a

former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency?

— Trump v. United States, Page 41

A former president in this opinion is a president who has not gone through an impeachment proceeding and been convicted. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Mostly primary not using Reason secondary source207.96.32.81 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee that you would not need to try this hard to find something to support this theory if what you are saying is an accurate reflection of the opinion. Per the majority opinion though:
Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to former presidents who are not convicted in impeachment. Hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution.. As @Masem: points out, secondary sources on former President meaning are lacking. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By design WP editors are not legal experts (even if we are in real life), and we cannot take direct readings or interpretation of the opinion in any way without violating NOR. Secondary sources must be used, particularly on this case, to state the legal outcomes and impacts of this case. — Masem (t) 21:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I can’t cite any of this as it’s WP:OR. I would instead include the article from Reason which explains Trump’s theory and double jeopardy thoroughly. Are there any other thorough reliable sources on this case? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a PBS article, Steve Vladeck, constitutional lawyer, said “only option left for accountability for presidents becomes impeachment“[2] 207.96.32.81 (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://reason.com/2024/07/01/supreme-courts-presidential-immunity-ruling-could-shield-outrageous-abuses-of-power/
  2. ^ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-mean-for-trump-6-questions-answered

Placing strong dissent in summary of page

This decision is widely regarded in U.S. society as illegitimate and a prelude to tyrannical government. Such claims to absolute power to commit crimes have in the past led to dictatorships, civil strife or even wars. Placing dissenting opinions deep within the article in softer forms deprives readers of an important element of this topic. The Sotomayor dissent appearing in the first paragraphs of her official Supreme Court dissent in the ruling itself is fully supported as a historical document and provides essential context to the import of this ruling in the introductory section where it can be grasped by the highest number of readers.

See PDF for supreme court ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf 174.21.135.244 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add to reactions section: majority position of the American people against absolute immunity to commit any crime for presidents

Polling prior to this ruling shows that 70% of Americans disagrees with the idea that the president has absolute criminal immunity ( and is thus above the law )

Per the same poll, 46% of Americans do not trust this court to render a fair and unbiased opinion on this topic. Post-ruling polling is likely also of interest to see how opinion shifts in response to post-ruling criticism and/or support for this authoritarian document.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/most-americans-still-think-trump-should-go-trial-2024-presidential-election

Given that this ruling is outside the tradition of constitutional law both in America and in other free countries in giving absolute immunity to commit any crime to the executive, the majority position of the American people in favor of constitutional tradition and against this court's expansive and baseless claims of presidential impunity should be recorded in this article. ThomasPaine2024 (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to add to "Opposition" section

Suggestion to add to the "Opposition" section: Yale University professor and legal scholar Akhil Amar has said, "This is one of the worst decisions in all of Constitutional history." Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApRKoa2Kh4s 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reactions" section is already immense and actually probably needs pruning a bit. Mr. Amar's commentary adds no insight to the issue... that the decision is widely loathed is already well-covered. Marcus Markup (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move this article to Trump v. United States?

That page currently serves as a disambiguation page for both this page (i.e., the Supreme Court case arising from the D.C. indictment) and Trump v. United States (2022) (i.e., the case brought in the S. D. Fla. by then-former President Trump regarding documents seized from the search of Mar-a-Lago). However, the 2024 case seems to be the primary topic, and there is only one other use (i.e., the 2022 case). Should this page be moved, the 2022 case linked using a hat-note, and the disambiguation page deleted? Glad Tidings from New York (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 March 2025

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The 2024 landmark Supreme Court ruling recognizing broad presidential immunity is the clear primary topic over the other topic, Trump v. United States (2022) (a lawsuit that Trump filed in the Southern District of Florida seeking for a special master to review the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago by the FBI; it was dismissed a few months later). This is the primary topic both by long-term significance and by usage (see page views and navigation from the disambiguation page). (Once moved, the disambiguation page will be unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER.) – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 10:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Outside of some circles, the actual names of SCOTUS cases are not really known unless they get common day traction (eg like Roe v. Wade). As such, just because the 2024 case is of more significance, most people are coming to the 2024 either by a wikilink or searching on descriptive terms (like "trump immunity" which does land here). The shorthand legal case name is still the right title for it, but it doesn't make sense to give that more weight than the 2022 case given the obscurity of the case names to start. Masem (t) 12:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Masem. Additionally, I think it's relatively likely that there will be more cases with this name to come out of the current political situation. As soon as there is a third, a move like this would almost certainly just need to be undone anyway. lethargilistic (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is a landmark case and will be referenced for generations. There is no other case with this title that's even remotely close in either of our WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria... particularly long-term significance Red Slash 17:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear primary topic, as the nominator shows. The opposing rationales above are not even relevant to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC factors. And while it's especially not policy-relevant to base the RM on predictions of future cases which are yet to occur, I'll remark that I find the above interpretation of the political situation to be completely backward – there is hardly a chance of another legal case of him against the executive any time soon, now that he is in charge of the executive. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As per PRIMARYTOPIC, while this is a case where PT2 applies (the case has more long term significance than the 2022 case), PT1 is not (per my !vote above). As that page thus explains, consensus then applies. Masem (t) 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trump_v._United_States_(2024)
No tags for this post.