(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden will sit down with ABC News on Friday for his first television interview since last week’s presidential debate.
The president’s poor performance in the debate has garnered calls for him to drop out of the race by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Biden will speak to “Good Morning America” and “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos for the interview. A first look will air on the Friday, July 5, edition of “World News Tonight with David Muir” with portions airing on Saturday and Sunday on “Good Morning America.”
The extended interview will air Sunday, July 7, on “This Week” and Monday’s episode of “Good Morning America.”
Biden, 81, has been criticized for his uneven performance in the debate. Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett became the first House Democrat to call on Biden to withdraw as nominee Tuesday.
Despite some calls for him to step aside, most Democrats have continued to support Biden as the nominee.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told MSNBC on Tuesday that the president had “a bad night,” but added, “He has judgment. He has strategic thinking and the rest.”
Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, who is running for reelection in Pennsylvania, threw his support behind Biden Monday afternoon when asked about the president’s debate performance, telling reporters he is confident Biden can run a strong reelection race and serve a second term.
“No, I don’t worry about that. Look, he had a bad night in the debate, but I think people know what’s at stake,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett broke with President Joe Biden on Tuesday, calling on him to withdraw as Democratic nominee following the president’s debate performance.
“President Biden has continued to run substantially behind Democratic senators in key states and in most polls has trailed Donald Trump. I had hoped that the debate would provide some momentum to change that. It did not. Instead of reassuring voters, the President failed to effectively defend his many accomplishments and expose Trump’s many lies,” Doggett wrote in a statement.
Doggett is the first sitting Democratic member of Congress — House or Senate — to publicly call on Biden to withdraw as the Democratic nominee for president.
“My decision to make these strong reservations public is not done lightly nor does it in any way diminish my respect for all that President Biden has achieved,” Doggett said. “Recognizing that, unlike Trump, President Biden’s first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so.”
Doggett, who was first elected to the House in 1995, joins a growing cohort of Democrats who are criticizing Biden’s debate performance and calling for the president to reconsider staying in the presidential race.
Former Ohio congressman and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tim Ryan wrote in an opinion piece published Monday night in Newsweek that Biden should step aside and that Vice President Kamala Harris should become the Democratic nominee for president.
“He also promised to be a bridge President to the next generation… Regrettably, that bridge collapsed last week,” Ryan wrote of Biden’s debate performance. “Witnessing Joe Biden struggle was heartbreaking. And we must forge a new path forward.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
ABC News’ Oren Oppenheim contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump aimed to secure such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4, but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 8:21 PM ‘There are no kings in America’: Biden reacts to SCOTUS ruling on immunity
President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court’s historic decision on presidential immunity Monday, saying the ruling “fundamentally changed” the limits to America’s highest office.
“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America,” Biden said.
“Each of us is equal before the law,” he continued. “No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.”
“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden said.
President Joe Biden speaks in the Cross Hall of the White House, July 1, 2024, in Washington. Addressing the charges Trump faces for actions taken to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Biden said, “The public has a right to know the answer about what happened on Jan. 6 before they are asked to vote again this year.”
Ahead of the November election, Biden said the American people have to decide if they want to “entrust” the presidency once again to Donald Trump, “now knowing he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it.”
President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday, which said former President Donald Trump is entitled to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken to overturn results of the 2020 election.
SCOTUS’ 6-3 decision made it unlikely the former president would be tried before the November 2024 election.
“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden said.
“This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden continued, warning, “The only limits will be self-imposed posed by the president alone.”
Biden delivered his remarks from the White House’s Cross Hall Monday.
Jul 01, 6:17 PM Biden set to deliver remarks on SCOTUS ruling
President Joe Biden will deliver remarks on the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling this evening from the White House at 7:45 p.m. ET.
Biden is returning to the White House from Camp David, where his family, including first lady Jill Biden, son Hunter Biden and their grandchildren have been for a pre-scheduled gathering.
Jul 01, 4:05 PM Supreme Court’s liberal justices warn of ‘law-free zone’
While both the conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices agreed its ruling has far-reaching implications for the future of the presidency, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the impact would be chilling.
“Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark,” she wrote. “The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding,” she said in her dissent.
Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson described the majority’s threshold for deciding immunity on a case-by-case basis as complicated and convoluted. The model they laid out, she said, could leave presidents feeling more emboldened to act unlawfully.
“Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when — if ever — a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act ‘manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority, they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike,” she wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against the liberal dissents, saying they “strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.”
“Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. Accounting for that reality — and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives.”
-ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:39 PM Seal Team 6 hypothetical assassination referenced in dissent
In their dissents, both justices Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
When the president “uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor said in her dissent. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said on ABC News Live Monday that she agreed with the dissenting opinion that ordering the hypothetical assassination could be considered immune from criminal prosecution.
“In terms of the application of this immunity to very extreme scenarios like ordering an assassination, I’m not sure the majority successfully explains why this rule would not shield that kind of conduct if it’s engaged in an official capacity, even if it’s wildly wrong and dangerous and destructive,” she said. “If that conduct is done in official capacity, I think the dissent is right on this opinion’s own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case.”
The SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case in April.
Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.
“I’m going to give you a chance to say … if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him — is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked during oral arguments.
“It would depend on the hypothetical,” Sauer answered. “We could see that could well be an official act.”
-ABC News’ Meredith Deliso and Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:34 PM White House spokesman reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, released a statement about the ruling stating, “As President Biden has said, nobody is above the law.”
“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works. We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down,” Sams added.
-ABC News’ Selina Wang
Jul 01, 3:24 PM Election interference judge does not mention Supreme Court decision during hearing
Washington, D.C., District Judge Tanya Chutkan did not mention or make any remarks about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling during her first public hearing on Monday since the Supreme Court court sent Trump’s Jan 6 case back to her.
At one point during a status hearing for a Jan 6. defendant, when Judge Chutkan was asked about a trial date, she said “my calendar is…” as she made a face and laughed.
The heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee both released statements following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
RNC chair Michael Whatley said “today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and a reminder that the Constitution outweighs the left’s weaponization of the judicial system against President Trump and his allies.”
DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, however, argued the “ruling only underscores the stakes of this election,” in light of Trump’s repeated threats against his opponents.
“The only thing standing between Donald Trump and his threats to our democracy is President Biden — and the American people will stand once again on the side of democracy this November,” he said.
Jul 01, 12:33 PM Trump argues decision ‘should end all’ cases against him
Trump spoke about the ruling in another post on his social media platform arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision “should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me.”
The former president specifically cited his Manhattan hush-money case, in which Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. He is slated to be sentenced this month in the hush-money case.
Trump also cited the New York attorney general civil case against his businesses’ fraudulent practices and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
Jul 01, 12:11 PM Barrett disagrees with ruling’s stance on evidence
Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority on the presidential immunity case, she dissented on a section of the ruling that limits what evidence can be used against a president at trial.
Barrett brought up a hypothetical situation of a bribery case against a president, arguing while there are clear federal laws that prohibit the commander-in-chief from accepting bribes, excluding evidence would “hamstring the prosecution.”
“To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability,” she wrote in her concurring opinion.
“I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury … But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis,” Barrett added.
-ABC News’ Katherine Faulders
Jul 01, 11:47 AM Trump fundraises off immunity ruling
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign sent out an email fundraising off the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
“BREAKING FROM TRUMP: Supreme Court gives TOTAL IMMUNITY for official acts!” Trump campaign’s fundraising email said.
“Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted – BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY &; OUR CONSTITUTION!” the fundraising email continues, calling the case a “witch hunt” and saying it “should’ve never happened.”
Jul 01, 11:34 AM Jackson argues ruling ‘breaks new and dangerous ground’
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling arguing it “breaks new and dangerous ground.”
“So, how does this new Presidential accountability model work? An initial problem is the lack of clarity regarding what this new model entails,” she wrote.
Jackson added that the ruling “unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress.”
Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents. Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:16 AM ‘It makes a mockery of the principle … that no man is above the law,’ Sotomayor says in dissent
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the conservative justices’ ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity case.
Sotomayor contended in her dissent that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
She argued the conservative justices invented “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.”
“That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force,” she added.
Sotomayor also said the ruling opens up the possibility that when a president uses their official powers in any way, they will be “insulated from criminal prosecution.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:03 AM Special counsel Jack Smith declines to comment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson told ABC News.
The court’s ruling will affect whether former President Donald Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Jul 01, 10:48 AM Trump reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Former President Donald Trump released a statement about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in a post on his social media platform.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Monday morning.
Jul 01, 10:44 AM Biden campaign reacts to SCOTUS ruling
A senior Biden campaign advisor released a statement about the court’s ruling on immunity, stating, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The campaign argued that Trump “thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”
Jul 01, 10:36 AM Supreme Court rules president has no immunity for unofficial acts
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the immunity case against former President Donald Trump stating, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.
The ruling, in which all of the liberal justices dissented,” added, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
Jul 01, 9:41 AM ‘It’s a BIG decision,’ Trump says
With the Supreme Court poised to rule in Trump’s presidential immunity case, former President Donald Trump is continuing to push his defense, saying Monday’s decision with be a “big” and “important” one.
“It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!” Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday.
Jul 01, 9:35 AM View from Trump’s legal world ahead of today’s ruling
While Trump’s team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why’s that?
Trump’s lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it’s not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case’s future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump’s lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump’s lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Jul 01, 9:19 AM ‘Disturbing’: What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
Jul 01, 6:41 AM Five key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
Former President Donald Trump speaks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Policy Conference at the Washington Hilton, June 22, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s ruling that former President Donald Trump is presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for official acts carried out while in office is likely to have a ripple effect on each of his four criminal cases, potentially resulting in delays and complications that will further bog them down, experts told ABC News.
In the months leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s lawyers invoked presidential immunity as a defense in each of the four cases, including moving to dismiss Trump’s Florida and Georgia cases as well as exclude evidence in Trump’s New York hush money case.
While Monday’s ruling entitling Trump to immunity from prosecution for official acts while president will most directly impact his federal election interference case — potentially reshaping charges faced by the former president related to his conduct to overturn the 2020 election results — the Supreme Court’s decision could provide Trump’s lawyers additional ammunition to challenge and delay the other cases.
Following Monday’s landmark Supreme Court decision, Trump’s lawyers made their first move to capitalize on the ruling by seeking to throw out the former president’s conviction in New York for falsifying business records.
Experts suggested that both Trump’s federal and state election interference cases — brought by both special counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis — could be reshaped to conform to Monday’s decision. Trump’s Florida criminal case — related to the alleged retention of classified documents — could face further delays to address the Supreme Court ruling.
“Trump’s lawyers are now going to make every argument they can make based on the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Pace University School of Law professor Bennett L. Gershman.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in each case, and has accused the cases of being politically motivated.
Federal election interference case
The Supreme Court determined that presidents are presumed to be protected by immunity for any official acts, but the court did not clearly apply the ruling to Trump’s alleged criminal conduct, leaving that decision to the trial judge overseeing the case.
Judge Tanya Chutkan — who froze the proceedings for six months during Trump’s Supreme Court appeal — will now need to determine if Trump’s alleged conduct comprised official or private acts. To answer that question, Chutkan will need to consider whether Trump’s conduct fell within the “outer perimeter” of Trump’s presidential duties or if the actions were committed in Trump’s capacity as president, rather than a candidate for office or party leader.
While the justices found that some of the conduct — such as Trump’s interactions with Department of Justice officials — are absolutely official acts, they acknowledged Trump’s interactions with his vice president or state officials could present “difficult questions” for Chutkan.
Adding to the challenge, the justices limited Chutkan’s ability to inquire about Trump’s motives because such an inquiry would be “highly intrusive” and “‘seriously cripple” the president’s ability to conduct their official duties.
“I expect there’ll be hearings about what counts can stand, and what counts can’t stand, and what evidence can be presented and what evidence can’t be presented,” said Jeffrey Cohen, a Boston College associate law professor.
Those hearings could also allow prosecutors to air evidence and testimony ahead of Election Day — though Chutkan is not permitted to set any hearings for another month until the Supreme Court’s decision is formally issued.
The Supreme Court also prohibited prosecutors from using any testimony or private records from Trump or any of his advisers related to official acts as evidence at trial, further complicating the case.
Smith might consider modifying the case against Trump by going back to a grand jury to secure a superseding indictment, according to Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School.
Through a series of hearings and or an updated indictment, Chutkan could carve out a version of the case against Trump that meets the Supreme Court’s new standards, Levitt said.
Overall, experts ABC News spoke with agreed that Monday’s ruling significantly limited the breadth of the case and the kind of evidence that might be permissible at trial — and all but guaranteed that a trial would not take place before the election.
Either side can appeal Chutkan’s final decision about the bounds of the case, and that appeal could take up to a year and go all the way back to the Supreme Court.
“I think that this is a major hurdle for the prosecution,” said Fordham Law Professor Cheryl Bader. “This was a real gut punch.”
Georgia election interference case
The former president’s criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia, could also be reshaped by Monday’s ruling from the Supreme Court, experts said, because both the federal and the state case focus on Trump’s conduct while president.
“I would say that the rule for absolute immunity would apply pretty much equally in both instances, federal and state,” Gershman said.
Earlier this year, Trump’s lawyers sought to dismiss the state case based on the claim of presidential immunity, though the judge overseeing that case has yet to issue a decision, waiting for the Supreme Court’s final ruling.
“The indictment in this case charges President Trump for acts that lie at the heart of his official responsibilities as President,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a January motion. “The indictment is barred by presidential immunity and should be dismissed with prejudice.”
Bader suggested that the Georgia case’s emphasis on conduct related to state officials and private individuals could help prosecutors, since those interactions are less likely to be considered official acts.
The Georgia case is currently delayed as an appeals court considers Trump’s challenge to Judge Scott McAfee’s decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis, though experts suggested Trump could likely use the immunity ruling to extend the delay if or when the case is remanded back to McAfee.
Federal classified documents case
In February, Trump’s lawyers moved to dismiss the former president’s federal case related to the alleged retention of classified documents by arguing that Trump’s conduct was covered by presidential immunity.
Trump’s lawyers argued that the criminal charges “stem directly from official acts by President Trump while in office” because Trump allegedly designated the classified documents as personal records while he was in office.
Legal experts who spoke with ABC News were skeptical of the argument because the case inherently focuses on Trump’s conduct following the presidency, though Judge Aileen Cannon has yet to issue a ruling on the motion.
“There’s a good argument there that there is no official action in holding on to documents after he leaves the office,” Gershman said.
Monday’s ruling might prompt Cannon to reconsider the question of immunity by applying the Supreme Court’s test for official acts — a move that could further delay the proceedings, experts said.
“I could definitely see Judge Cannon using this as an additional vehicle for delay,” Bader added, though she emphasized the case was already unlikely to go to trial before the election.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas also provided support for the defense argument that Smith was illegally appointed as special counsel, which Cannon considered during a two-day hearing in June.
“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Thomas wrote.
New York hush money case
In May, a New York jury convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying records related to a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his chances in the 2016 presidential election.
Ahead of the trial, Trump’s lawyers asked that the judge overseeing the case limit certain evidence based on Trump’s immunity claim. The evidence — a government ethics form disclosing the reimbursement at the center of the case, and Trump’s social media posts from his official Twitter account in 2018 related to an alleged “pressure campaign” against his former lawyer Michael Cohen — was admitted into evidence during the trial after Judge Juan Merchan rejected the immunity argument as “untimely.”
“The Court declines to consider whether the doctrine of presidential immunity precludes the introduction of evidence of purported official presidential acts in a criminal proceeding,” Merchan wrote in an April decision.
In a letter to Merchan on Monday — described by sources to ABC News — Trump’s lawyers argued that the verdict should be thrown out because the jury saw evidence that should have been protected by Trump’s immunity for official acts.
Trump’s lawyers could ask Merchan or an appeals court to reconsider if the conviction would stand without the social media posts and ethics form, if the evidence was deemed protected as an official act, according to Gershman.
“There’s just a mountain of other evidence that would support the jury’s verdict, so I don’t see it really having any appreciable impact, if any impact, on the New York case,” Gershman said.
A federal judge who heard arguments related to Trump’s effort to remove the case to federal court already dismissed the argument that any of Trump’s conduct in the case was protected “under the color of the official acts of a President.”
“The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event,” Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote in a July 2023 decision denying Trump’s effort to remove the case to federal court. “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.”
U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during an event in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday, April 8, 2024. (Daniel Steinle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Handing the Biden administration an unexpected win amidst a legal back-and-forth, a court over the weekend agreed to let the Education Department continue implementing the final phases of a student loan repayment plan that will lower people’s monthly bills.
This comes after the department had already begun the process to put three million borrowers into a payment pause, a move officials said was necessary to comply with the court’s initial ruling last week to halt the payment cuts. But because of the latest ruling, borrowers enrolled in the SAVE Plan will now go forward with payments at their new rates beginning in July and August, officials said.
The SAVE Plan, dubbed the most affordable plan for borrowers and President Joe Biden’s hallmark surviving student debt reform effort, is the target of two Republican-led lawsuits that argue the Biden administration has gone beyond its authority in aspects of the plan. Courts in Kansas and Missouri ruled in the GOP states’ favor last week, deciding the Biden administration could not go forward with further implementation of the SAVE Plan, an income-driven repayment plan that was rolled out last August and used by eight million people.
In particular, the rulings halted the Department of Education from cutting borrowers’ payments beginning July 1, when they were set to decrease from 10% of a borrower’s discretionary income down to 5% for those with undergraduate loans, and from canceling any more loans for people who’d taken out small initial loan balances but had been paying them down for over a decade. So far, 414,000 people have qualified for the debt relief.
After the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling, allowing the Biden administration to proceed with the payment cut. Debt relief remains on pause.
“Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sided with student loan borrowers across the country who stand to benefit from the SAVE Plan – the most affordable repayment plan in history,” Education Department Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement on Monday.
In addition to offering the lowest monthly payment for most borrowers, the plan also shields borrowers from unpaid interest accrual, one of the largest additional fees that borrowers face on their loans. Unpaid interest is forgiven so long as qualified borrowers make their monthly payments on the loan — even if their required payment is $0. About 4.5 million borrowers enrolled in the SAVE Plan qualify for $0 monthly payments because they make minimum wage or less.
“Borrowers will hear directly from their loan servicers and the Department as we implement the new, lower monthly payments for borrowers enrolled in SAVE,” Cardona said.
The department offered some guidance for borrowers trying to navigate the rulings.
Due to the rush to adhere to evolving court decrees, some borrowers might have already been placed on a payment pause when the court reversed the ruling. Those borrowers — who should see in their student loan servicer portals that they are placed in forbearance — will remain on a payment pause through July and be expected to make their first payment at the lower rate in August, a Department of Education spokesperson said Monday.
If a borrower has already received a bill from their loan servicer with a lower, correct rate, they should expect to pay it in July, the spokesperson said.
Overall, following the changes has been challenging, said Michael Lopez, a 33-year-old social worker and high school wrestling coach who lives in Anaheim, California. Lopez took on roughly $200,000 to get an undergraduate and then a master’s degree in social work, putting him on the high end of the spectrum of student debt carried by Americans.
“I’ve been keeping up as best I can, given all of the sudden shifts,” he said.
Lopez said he was relieved to see that the SAVE Plan could go forward and his monthly payments would fall but that the pattern of court decisions halting student loan policies has made him permanently wary.
“I’m happy about it and at the same time still anxious over the whole thing. There have been so many changes and so much uncertainty that it’s hard to really feel great about any good news since it could easily change again,” Lopez said.
Lopez and many other borrowers were disappointed when Biden couldn’t follow through on his pledge to cancel $10,000 to $20,000 in debt last year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his sweeping debt relief policy for 43 million Americans.
Biden’s continued efforts to cancel debt in a more piecemeal fashion have now reached nearly 4.75 million borrowers, which Biden continues to highlight on the campaign trail.
Three percent of the debt relief issued by the Biden administration has been through the SAVE Plan, while the vast majority has been through fixes to programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness and income-driven repayment plans, which were plagued by administrative failures. The administration has also gone after colleges that have defrauded students, distributing widespread debt relief to the victims.
The administration is continuing to work on a Plan B to Biden’s initial, widespread debt relief proposal, taking a narrower approach that could cancel debt for about 30 million people in total, including the people who’ve already had debts canceled.
The administration hopes this more bureaucratic approach will not be overturned by the court yet again — though it is almost certain to face lawsuits once it reaches its final stages this summer.
(WASHINGTON) — In a historic ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court said former President Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for “official” acts taken as president, but not for any “unofficial” acts.
The 6-3 decision could have major implications for the various criminal cases pending against Trump — especially special counsel Jack Smith’s federal case, for which Trump faces four felony counts for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
What constitutes an “official” versus an “unofficial” act by the president is not precisely defined in the opinion, and Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged it could raise “difficult questions.”
“Certain allegations — such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General — are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “Other allegations — such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public — present more difficult questions.”
In addition to the core presidential duties laid out in the Constitution, conduct within the “outer perimeter” of official functions would be deemed immune as long as it is “not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”
It would be up to the lower courts to determine whether the conduct in question is considered official or unofficial.
“[Official acts are] something that you would expect the president to do — kind of a core presidential duty, like acting as Commander-in-Chief of the military,” said Chris Timmons, a former prosecutor and ABC News legal contributor. “If the president of the United States sent troops to Lebanon, for example, he couldn’t be prosecuted for murder.”
Though the ruling has been largely deemed a win for Trump, it’s far from a get-out-of-jail-free card, legal experts told ABC News — particularly when it comes to prosecution for actions he took not as the president but as a candidate.
When it comes to allegations that Trump enlisted “fake electors” to overturn the 2020 election in his favor, for example, it would likely be difficult to argue that was done in his official capacity as president.
“The interaction with fake electors is not something a president does as part of his official duties — it is something a candidate does as part of their campaign,” Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. “That allows the court to say, I think rightly in this case, that Trump’s interaction with the fake electors is really on the unofficial side, rather than official.”
Even so, punting the decision to the lower courts is almost certain to throw obstacles in the way of the pending litigation against Trump, slowing them down even further ahead of the election.
“The court basically said that as long as Trump or any president claims that what he was doing was acting officially, then his actions are presumptively constitutional, and it’s up to the prosecutor to find evidence to overcome that presumption, and that is not going to be easy,” Gerhardt said.
Some legal experts expect Smith may reevaluate the federal case against Trump, possibly jettisoning some elements that could prove shakier due to the Supreme Court ruling.
“One option is to try to streamline the case considerably to only those acts that either Trump conceded were unofficial, or those acts plus some that Jack Smith thinks he has the best chance of persuading the courts are unofficial, and then proceed on that basis in the interest of efficiency,” Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor and Cardozo Law professor, told ABC News. “Or does he want to be more aggressive and try to keep more of the allegations in the case, which might be more risky for him in terms of ultimately prevailing?”
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump aimed to secure such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4, but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 8:21 PM ‘There are no kings in America’: Biden reacts to SCOTUS ruling on immunity
President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court’s historic decision on presidential immunity Monday, saying the ruling “fundamentally changed” the limits to America’s highest office.
“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America,” Biden said.
“Each of us is equal before the law,” he continued. “No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.”
“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden said.
President Joe Biden speaks in the Cross Hall of the White House, July 1, 2024, in Washington. Addressing the charges Trump faces for actions taken to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Biden said, “The public has a right to know the answer about what happened on Jan. 6 before they are asked to vote again this year.”
Ahead of the November election, Biden said the American people have to decide if they want to “entrust” the presidency once again to Donald Trump, “now knowing he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it.”
President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday, which said former President Donald Trump is entitled to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken to overturn results of the 2020 election.
SCOTUS’ 6-3 decision made it unlikely the former president would be tried before the November 2024 election.
“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden said.
“This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden continued, warning, “The only limits will be self-imposed posed by the president alone.”
Biden delivered his remarks from the White House’s Cross Hall Monday.
Jul 01, 6:17 PM Biden set to deliver remarks on SCOTUS ruling
President Joe Biden will deliver remarks on the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling this evening from the White House at 7:45 p.m. ET.
Biden is returning to the White House from Camp David, where his family, including first lady Jill Biden, son Hunter Biden and their grandchildren have been for a pre-scheduled gathering.
Jul 01, 4:05 PM Supreme Court’s liberal justices warn of ‘law-free zone’
While both the conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices agreed its ruling has far-reaching implications for the future of the presidency, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the impact would be chilling.
“Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark,” she wrote. “The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding,” she said in her dissent.
Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson described the majority’s threshold for deciding immunity on a case-by-case basis as complicated and convoluted. The model they laid out, she said, could leave presidents feeling more emboldened to act unlawfully.
“Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when — if ever — a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act ‘manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority, they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike,” she wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against the liberal dissents, saying they “strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.”
“Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. Accounting for that reality — and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives.”
-ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:39 PM Seal Team 6 hypothetical assassination referenced in dissent
In their dissents, both justices Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
When the president “uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor said in her dissent. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said on ABC News Live Monday that she agreed with the dissenting opinion that ordering the hypothetical assassination could be considered immune from criminal prosecution.
“In terms of the application of this immunity to very extreme scenarios like ordering an assassination, I’m not sure the majority successfully explains why this rule would not shield that kind of conduct if it’s engaged in an official capacity, even if it’s wildly wrong and dangerous and destructive,” she said. “If that conduct is done in official capacity, I think the dissent is right on this opinion’s own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case.”
The SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case in April.
Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.
“I’m going to give you a chance to say … if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him — is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked during oral arguments.
“It would depend on the hypothetical,” Sauer answered. “We could see that could well be an official act.”
-ABC News’ Meredith Deliso and Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:34 PM White House spokesman reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, released a statement about the ruling stating, “As President Biden has said, nobody is above the law.”
“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works. We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down,” Sams added.
-ABC News’ Selina Wang
Jul 01, 3:24 PM Election interference judge does not mention Supreme Court decision during hearing
Washington, D.C., District Judge Tanya Chutkan did not mention or make any remarks about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling during her first public hearing on Monday since the Supreme Court court sent Trump’s Jan 6 case back to her.
At one point during a status hearing for a Jan 6. defendant, when Judge Chutkan was asked about a trial date, she said “my calendar is…” as she made a face and laughed.
The heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee both released statements following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
RNC chair Michael Whatley said “today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and a reminder that the Constitution outweighs the left’s weaponization of the judicial system against President Trump and his allies.”
DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, however, argued the “ruling only underscores the stakes of this election,” in light of Trump’s repeated threats against his opponents.
“The only thing standing between Donald Trump and his threats to our democracy is President Biden — and the American people will stand once again on the side of democracy this November,” he said.
Jul 01, 12:33 PM Trump argues decision ‘should end all’ cases against him
Trump spoke about the ruling in another post on his social media platform arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision “should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me.”
The former president specifically cited his Manhattan hush-money case, in which Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. He is slated to be sentenced this month in the hush-money case.
Trump also cited the New York attorney general civil case against his businesses’ fraudulent practices and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
Jul 01, 12:11 PM Barrett disagrees with ruling’s stance on evidence
Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority on the presidential immunity case, she dissented on a section of the ruling that limits what evidence can be used against a president at trial.
Barrett brought up a hypothetical situation of a bribery case against a president, arguing while there are clear federal laws that prohibit the commander-in-chief from accepting bribes, excluding evidence would “hamstring the prosecution.”
“To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability,” she wrote in her concurring opinion.
“I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury … But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis,” Barrett added.
-ABC News’ Katherine Faulders
Jul 01, 11:47 AM Trump fundraises off immunity ruling
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign sent out an email fundraising off the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
“BREAKING FROM TRUMP: Supreme Court gives TOTAL IMMUNITY for official acts!” Trump campaign’s fundraising email said.
“Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted – BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY &; OUR CONSTITUTION!” the fundraising email continues, calling the case a “witch hunt” and saying it “should’ve never happened.”
Jul 01, 11:34 AM Jackson argues ruling ‘breaks new and dangerous ground’
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling arguing it “breaks new and dangerous ground.”
“So, how does this new Presidential accountability model work? An initial problem is the lack of clarity regarding what this new model entails,” she wrote.
Jackson added that the ruling “unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress.”
Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents. Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:16 AM ‘It makes a mockery of the principle … that no man is above the law,’ Sotomayor says in dissent
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the conservative justices’ ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity case.
Sotomayor contended in her dissent that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
She argued the conservative justices invented “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.”
“That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force,” she added.
Sotomayor also said the ruling opens up the possibility that when a president uses their official powers in any way, they will be “insulated from criminal prosecution.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:03 AM Special counsel Jack Smith declines to comment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson told ABC News.
The court’s ruling will affect whether former President Donald Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Jul 01, 10:48 AM Trump reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Former President Donald Trump released a statement about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in a post on his social media platform.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Monday morning.
Jul 01, 10:44 AM Biden campaign reacts to SCOTUS ruling
A senior Biden campaign advisor released a statement about the court’s ruling on immunity, stating, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The campaign argued that Trump “thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”
Jul 01, 10:36 AM Supreme Court rules president has no immunity for unofficial acts
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the immunity case against former President Donald Trump stating, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.
The ruling, in which all of the liberal justices dissented,” added, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
Jul 01, 9:41 AM ‘It’s a BIG decision,’ Trump says
With the Supreme Court poised to rule in Trump’s presidential immunity case, former President Donald Trump is continuing to push his defense, saying Monday’s decision with be a “big” and “important” one.
“It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!” Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday.
Jul 01, 9:35 AM View from Trump’s legal world ahead of today’s ruling
While Trump’s team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why’s that?
Trump’s lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it’s not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case’s future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump’s lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump’s lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Jul 01, 9:19 AM ‘Disturbing’: What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
Jul 01, 6:41 AM Five key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
(WASHINGTON) — Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon surrendered on Monday to law enforcement to begin his four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress.
He entered the Federal Correctional Institute Danbury, in Danbury, Connecticut, shortly before noon to begin serving his sentence.
The Supreme Court had on Friday denied Bannon’s request to remain out of prison during the appeals process after he filed an emergency appeal on Friday with the high court.
Bannon was sentenced to four months in October 2022 after he was found guilty of defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Speaking to supporters before he entered the Danbury facility, Bannon said he was proud to begin his sentence.
“I am proud to go to prison,” Bannon said. “If this is what it takes the stand up to tyranny, if this way it takes the stand up to the Garland corrupt criminal DOJ, if this is what it takes to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, if this is what it takes to stand up to Joe Biden, I’m proud to do it. “
Bannon, who was joined by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican Senate candidate Royce White, former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, and a priest, spoke as supporters and counter protesters shouted over each other.
Asked by ABC News if he has any regrets about his conduct, Bannon stood by his actions.
“I have not only no regrets,” Bannon said, “I’m actually proud of what I did, I’d feel terrible if I didn’t do it. I don’t mind going to prison today.”
Bannon told supporters that he will continue to support former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign from prison, adding that his War Room podcast will be “bigger and better than ever.”
“You don’t need my voice. We’re a populist movement,” Bannon said.
“Victory or death,” Bannon concluded. “It’s time for me to surrender up at Danbury.”
A U.S. district judge had ordered Bannon, 70, to report to prison by July 1 to begin serving his sentence.
Bannon is the second Trump adviser to be convicted and sent to prison for refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 panel, after former Trump adviser Peter Navarro reported to prison in March.
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Laura Romero and Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump aimed to secure such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4, but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 3:39 PM Seal Team 6 hypothetical assassination referenced in dissent
In their dissents, both justices Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
When the president “uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor said in her dissent. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said on ABC News Live Monday that she agreed with the dissenting opinion that ordering the hypothetical assassination could be considered immune from criminal prosecution.
“In terms of the application of this immunity to very extreme scenarios like ordering an assassination, I’m not sure the majority successfully explains why this rule would not shield that kind of conduct if it’s engaged in an official capacity, even if it’s wildly wrong and dangerous and destructive,” she said. “If that conduct is done in official capacity, I think the dissent is right on this opinion’s own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case.”
The SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case in April.
Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.
“I’m going to give you a chance to say … if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him — is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked during oral arguments.
“It would depend on the hypothetical,” Sauer answered. “We could see that could well be an official act.”
-ABC News’ Meredith Deliso and Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:34 PM White House spokesman reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, released a statement about the ruling stating, “As President Biden has said, nobody is above the law.”
“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works. We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down,” Sams added.
-ABC News’ Selina Wang
Jul 01, 3:24 PM Election interference judge does not mention Supreme Court decision during hearing
Washington, D.C., District Judge Tanya Chutkan did not mention or make any remarks about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling during her first public hearing on Monday since the Supreme Court court sent Trump’s Jan 6 case back to her.
At one point during a status hearing for a Jan 6. defendant, when Judge Chutkan was asked about a trial date, she said “my calendar is…” as she made a face and laughed.
The heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee both released statements following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
RNC chair Michael Whatley said “today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and a reminder that the Constitution outweighs the left’s weaponization of the judicial system against President Trump and his allies.”
DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, however, argued the “ruling only underscores the stakes of this election,” in light of Trump’s repeated threats against his opponents.
“The only thing standing between Donald Trump and his threats to our democracy is President Biden — and the American people will stand once again on the side of democracy this November,” he said.
Jul 01, 12:33 PM Trump argues decision ‘should end all’ cases against him
Trump spoke about the ruling in another post on his social media platform arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision “should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me.”
The former president specifically cited his Manhattan hush-money case, in which Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. He is slated to be sentenced this month in the hush-money case.
Trump also cited the New York attorney general civil case against his businesses’ fraudulent practices and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
Jul 01, 12:11 PM Barrett disagrees with ruling’s stance on evidence
Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority on the presidential immunity case, she dissented on a section of the ruling that limits what evidence can be used against a president at trial.
Barrett brought up a hypothetical situation of a bribery case against a president, arguing while there are clear federal laws that prohibit the commander-in-chief from accepting bribes, excluding evidence would “hamstring the prosecution.”
“To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability,” she wrote in her concurring opinion.
“I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury … But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis,” Barrett added.
-ABC News’ Katherine Faulders
Jul 01, 11:47 AM Trump fundraises off immunity ruling
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign sent out an email fundraising off the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
“BREAKING FROM TRUMP: Supreme Court gives TOTAL IMMUNITY for official acts!” Trump campaign’s fundraising email said.
“Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted – BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY &; OUR CONSTITUTION!” the fundraising email continues, calling the case a “witch hunt” and saying it “should’ve never happened.”
Jul 01, 11:34 AM Jackson argues ruling ‘breaks new and dangerous ground’
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling arguing it “breaks new and dangerous ground.”
“So, how does this new Presidential accountability model work? An initial problem is the lack of clarity regarding what this new model entails,” she wrote.
Jackson added that the ruling “unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress.”
Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents. Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:16 AM ‘It makes a mockery of the principle … that no man is above the law,’ Sotomayor says in dissent
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the conservative justices’ ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity case.
Sotomayor contended in her dissent that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
She argued the conservative justices invented “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.”
“That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force,” she added.
Sotomayor also said the ruling opens up the possibility that when a president uses their official powers in any way, they will be “insulated from criminal prosecution.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:03 AM Special counsel Jack Smith declines to comment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson told ABC News.
The court’s ruling will affect whether former President Donald Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Jul 01, 10:48 AM Trump reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Former President Donald Trump released a statement about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in a post on his social media platform.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Monday morning.
Jul 01, 10:44 AM Biden campaign reacts to SCOTUS ruling
A senior Biden campaign advisor released a statement about the court’s ruling on immunity, stating, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The campaign argued that Trump “thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”
Jul 01, 10:36 AM Supreme Court rules president has no immunity for unofficial acts
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the immunity case against former President Donald Trump stating, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.
The ruling, in which all of the liberal justices dissented,” added, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
Jul 01, 9:41 AM ‘It’s a BIG decision,’ Trump says
With the Supreme Court poised to rule in Trump’s presidential immunity case, former President Donald Trump is continuing to push his defense, saying Monday’s decision with be a “big” and “important” one.
“It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!” Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday.
Jul 01, 9:35 AM View from Trump’s legal world ahead of today’s ruling
While Trump’s team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why’s that?
Trump’s lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it’s not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case’s future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump’s lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump’s lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Jul 01, 9:19 AM ‘Disturbing’: What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
Jul 01, 6:41 AM Five key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump aimed to secure such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4, but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 11:03 AM Special counsel Jack Smith declines to comment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson told ABC News.
The court’s ruling will affect whether former President Donald Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Jul 01, 10:48 AM Trump reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Former President Donald Trump released a statement about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in a post on his social media platform.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Monday morning.
Jul 01, 10:44 AM Biden campaign reacts to SCOTUS ruling
A senior Biden campaign advisor released a statement about the court’s ruling on immunity, stating, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The campaign argued that Trump “thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”
Jul 01, 10:36 AM Supreme Court rules president has no immunity for unofficial acts
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the immunity case against former President Donald Trump stating, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.
The ruling, in which all of the liberal justices dissented,” added, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
Jul 01, 9:41 AM ‘It’s a BIG decision,’ Trump says
With the Supreme Court poised to rule in Trump’s presidential immunity case, former President Donald Trump is continuing to push his defense, saying Monday’s decision with be a “big” and “important” one.
“It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!” Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday.
Jul 01, 9:35 AM View from Trump’s legal world ahead of today’s ruling
While Trump’s team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why’s that?
Trump’s lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it’s not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case’s future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump’s lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump’s lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Jul 01, 9:19 AM ‘Disturbing’: What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
Jul 01, 6:41 AM Five key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
