Tag: immunity

  • FBI must release Mar-a-Lago probe records despite Trump’s criminal immunity: Judge

    FBI must release Mar-a-Lago probe records despite Trump’s criminal immunity: Judge

    FBI records from the Mar-a-Lago classified documents probe will soon be released despite the dismissal of the case against President Donald Trump and his presidential immunity, according to a federal judge’s ruling Monday.

    In a court filing first obtained by Politico, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found that the FBI must disclose more information related to the case by Feb. 20. 

    The decision concerned a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case brought by journalist Jason Leopold.

    Leopold filed a request with the FBI in 2022 after reports that Trump during his first term “allegedly flushed some presidential records down the toilet when he was still in the White House and brought presidential records, including sensitive classified documents, to his personal residence in Florida,” according to the filing.

    The FBI asked the court to authorize withholding the records under Exemption 7A, which concerns “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that production of such law enforcement records or information…could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

    CBS STAFFERS UPSET OVER ‘60 MINUTES’ DRAMA, ADMIT KAMALA HARRIS INTERVIEW EDITS WERE AN ‘UNFORCED ERROR’

    President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Jan. 7, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

    In light of the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity as well as Trump’s election win in November, Trump is exempt from criminal proceedings, but Howell found the documents could still be released because of that fact, as there are no law enforcement proceedings against him.

    “Somewhat ironically, the constitutional and procedural safeguards attached to the criminal process include significant confidentiality mechanisms…. with a parallel safeguard in Exemption 7(A) to help preserve the necessary confidentiality of ongoing criminal investigations leading to anticipated enforcement actions, but for an immune president, Exemption 7(A) may simply be unavailable, as it is here,” Howell said.

    DEMOCRAT LAWMAKERS FACE BACKLASH FOR INVOKING ‘UNHINGED’ VIOLENT RHETORIC AGAINST MUSK 

    Files, documents

    Documents seized during the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on Aug. 8, 2022. (Department of Justice via AP/File)

    “Defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in their favor as to the legality of relying on Exemption 7(A) to withhold entirely the FBI’s investigative files from the processing of the FOIA request at issue and to assert a Glomar response to the sixth category of requested information, must be denied, and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment as to these legal issues is granted,” the decision concluded. “The parties are directed to submit jointly, by February 20, 2025, a status report proposing a schedule to govern future proceedings to conclude this case expeditiously.”

    Howell also noted that though Trump is immune from prosecution, anyone who may have helped to “aid, abet and execute criminal acts,” is not.

    Trump and the RNC announce a $76 million fundraising haul in April

    Former President Donald Trump headlines a Republican National Committee spring donor retreat in Palm Beach, Fla., on May 4, 2024. (Donald Trump 2024 campaign)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “Of course, while the Supreme Court has provided a protective and presumptive immunity cloak for a president’s conduct, that cloak is not so large to extend to those who aid, abet and execute criminal acts on behalf of a criminally immune president,” Howell wrote in a footnote. “The excuse offered after World War II by enablers of the fascist Nazi regime of ‘just following orders’ has long been rejected in this country’s jurisprudence.”

  • Sotomayor criticizes presidential immunity case as putting the high court’s legitimacy on the line

    Sotomayor criticizes presidential immunity case as putting the high court’s legitimacy on the line

    Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Court’s 2024 presidential immunity case in her first public appearance since the start of the second Trump term, saying it places the Court’s legitimacy on the line. 

    Sotomayor made the comments during an appearance in Louisville, Kentucky, during which she was asked a range of questions, including the public’s perception of the high court, according to the Associated Press. Sotomayor’s comments are her first in public since President Donald Trump took office last month. 

    “If we as a court go so much further ahead of people, our legitimacy is going to be questioned,” Sotomayor said during the Louisville event. “I think the immunity case is one of those situations. I don’t think that Americans have accepted that anyone should be above the law in America. Our equality as people was the foundation of our society and of our Constitution.”

    ‘INTEGRITY OF THE COURT’: CRUZ REINTRODUCES AMENDMENT TO COMBAT COURT EXPANSION EFFORTS

    In a 6-3 decision in July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

    The case stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

    Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Court’s 2024 presidential immunity case in her first public appearance since the start of the second Trump term, saying it places the Court’s legitimacy on the line.  (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

    Sotomayor notably wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, saying the decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

    JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS SWEARING IN MULTIPLE TRUMP CABINET OFFICIALS RAISES EYEBROWS AT CNN

    “Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,” the dissent continued. “Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

    Inset photo of former President Trump over the Supreme Court building.

    In a 6-3 decision in July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. (Donald Trump: Photo by Peter Zay/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images | Supreme Court: Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    During her Louisville appearance, Sotomayor shared that she “had a hard time with the immunity case,” saying the Constitution contains provisions “not exempting the president from criminal activity after an impeachment.”

    Sotomayor warned that if the Court were to continue down the same path, the Court’s legitimacy would ultimately be at risk. 

    SUPREME COURT DENIES TRUMP ATTEMPT TO STOP SENTENCING IN NEW YORK V. TRUMP

    “And if we continue going in directions that the public is going to find hard to understand, we’re placing the court at risk,” Sotomayor said. 

    When asked for comment, a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital, “This historic 6-3 ruling speaks for itself.”

    The justice suggested that one way to resolve the public’s distrust in the Court would be to slow down in overturning precedent. The Court has, in recent years, overturned various landmark decisions, including Roe v. Wade in 2022, and striking down affirmative action in college admissions in 2023 and the Chevron doctrine in 2024. 

    An activist holding a sign with Save Our Democracy written on it stands outside the US Supreme Court, as the court prepares to hear arguments on the immunity of former President Donald Trump in Washington, DC. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)

    The case stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.  (Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)

    “I think that creates instability in the society, in people’s perception of law and people’s perception of whether we’re doing things because of legal analysis or because of partisan views,” Sotomayor said. “Whether those views are accurate or not, I don’t accuse my colleagues of being partisan.”

    Sotomayor made similar comments in 2023, saying she had a “a sense of despair” about the Court’s direction following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe. Sotomayor did not name the case specifically. 

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

    However, the justice said she did not have the luxury to dwell on those feelings.

    “It’s not an option to fall into despair,” Sotomayor said. “I have to get up and keep fighting.”

    Fox News Digital’s Ronn Blitzer and the Associated Press contributed to this report.