Here’s Why Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Disagrees with the Outcome of Trump v. United States

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, joined by JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON in dissent.

Today’s decision to grant former presidents immunity from prosecution changes the institution of the presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, a bedrock principle of our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law. Based on nothing more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and fearless action” by the president, ante, in count 3, 13, the Court grants former President Trump all the immunity he requested and more. Because our Constitution does not protect a former president from criminal and treasonous conduct, I dissent.

AND

The indictment paints a grim picture of a president who wants to stay in power at all costs.

In the weeks leading up to January 6, 2021, then-President Trump allegedly “spread lies that there was fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” App. 181, Indictment ¶2, despite being “repeatedly advised” by his closest advisors “that his claims were false,” Ibid., p. 188, ¶11.

After dozens of courts quickly rejected those claims, Trump allegedly “pressured officials in several states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchised millions of voters; dismissed legitimate electors; and ultimately caused illegitimate electors to be determined and voted” in his favor. Ibid., pp. 185–186, ¶10(a). He is alleged to have gone so far as to threaten one state election official with criminal prosecution if that official did not “find” 11,780 votes, which Trump would have to do to overturn the election result in that state. Ibid., p. 202, ¶31(f).

When state officials repeatedly refused to act beyond their legal authority and change their states’ election procedures, Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly devised a plan to disrupt and replace the legitimate election certification process by organizing fraudulent slates of electors. See ibid., pp. 208–209, ¶¶53–54.

As the certification proceedings approached, Trump also allegedly attempted to “use the power and authority of the Department of Justice” to bolster his knowingly false allegations of election fraud by initiating “investigations into sham election crimes” and sending official letters “falsely claiming that the Department of Justice had identified serious concerns that could have affected the outcome of the election” while “falsely portraying fraudulent voters as valid alternatives to legitimate voters.” Ibid., pp. 186–187, ¶10(c).

When the Department refused to do as he asked, Trump turned to the Vice President. Initially, he tried to persuade the Vice President “to use his ceremonial role during the January 6 certification proceedings to fraudulently change the election results.” Ibid., p. 187, ¶10(d). When persuasion failed, he allegedly “tried to use the crowd of supporters he had gathered in Washington to pressure the Vice President to fraudulently change the election results.” Ibid., p. 221, ¶86.

Speaking to the crowd on January 6, Trump “falsely claimed that the Vice President could reverse the election based on fraud.” Ibid., 229, ¶104(a). As that mob “violently stormed the Capitol and halted the proceedings,” Ibid., 188, ¶10(e), Trump allegedly delayed taking any steps to contain the chaos he had unleashed. Instead, in a last desperate attempt to maintain power, he allegedly “sought to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol” by pressuring lawmakers to delay the certification of the election and ultimately declare him the winner. Ibid., 233, ¶119. This is the background against which this case comes to the Court.