Trump has already started to make the case that it ought to. In a letter dated November 26, Trump attorney John Sauer informed New York Attorney General Letitia James that the Justice Department was abandoning its criminal cases against Trump and urged her to drop her civil fraud complaint as well. After determining that Trump had exaggerated the worth of his properties for years in order to obtain better loan and insurance terms, a trial judge in February ordered Trump to pay $454 million. In that instance, Trump now owes almost $485 million, with interest still being charged. Trump has appealed the ruling and denies any misconduct.
According to Sauer, President Trump will soon become the 47th President of the United States. As a result, the ongoing litigation poses "serious and questionable constitutional issues" and significantly undermines the interests of the country. Although James' office has yet to respond to the letter, they might argue—based on Supreme Court precedent—that presidents are not exempt from civil liability for their private acts.
Just as he is arguing that his two state criminal cases should be dismissed entirely for those reasons, Trump may then file motions asking courts to dismiss the civil cases, arguing that their massive judgments will unconstitutionally distract from and interfere with his upcoming presidency. However, courts would have to declare additional safeguards for a sitting president or president-elect if he were to prevail in that civil case argument. To yet, no one in those positions has been completely shielded from civil claims. Gregory Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University, told news8.in that the Supreme Court would need to expand the law in a manner that they have never done before.
Trump may believe he has a good chance of having the $600 million obligation thrown out or stricken down on other grounds because he has already appealed the decisions in three civil cases in New York. This obligation comprises not just the about $485 million in the civil fraud action, but also an additional $88.3 million in two cases for sexual abuse and defamation brought by author E. Jean Carroll, with interest that continues to accrue. Trump has appealed those decisions and refutes Carroll's allegations.
The question of whether Trump intends to make the legal argument that his election should have an impact on his litigation claims was not immediately addressed by his transition team. According to a statement from Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung, the American people have overwhelmingly re-elected President Trump with the goal of "Making America Great Again." Americans' desire to immediately stop the weaponization of our legal system is now very evident, Cheung added, so that we may, as President Trump stated in his historic victory speech, unite as a nation and cooperate for the benefit of all.
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's attorney, stated in a statement that the fact that juries found against Trump is unaffected by his election. According to Kaplan, Mr. Trump's election to the presidency has no bearing on the fact that he sexually assaulted and defamed Ms. Carroll, as found by two different juries, or the relevant legal standards that held him accountable for his actions.
In 1997, the Supreme Court decided against Bill Clinton
The 1997 Supreme Court decision in a sexual harassment case against then-President Bill Clinton filed by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, may be the best defense against any attempt by Trump to have his civil cases halted or dismissed. A sitting president is not immune from civil claims in federal court that target activities unrelated to the presidency, the high court decided unanimously in Clinton v. Jones.
Since the facts of his cases differ from those in the Clinton case, Trump can counter that the Clinton case does not apply to him. For example, the Supreme Court stated clearly in the Clinton ruling that it was not addressing what should happen with a state court case, and Trump's civil fraud case is currently on appeal in state court. Trump would argue that's a significant distinction. In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James on November 26, Trump's attorney John Sauer contended that James, as a state prosecutor, could not bring charges against a sitting president "in any way" because of a clause in the Constitution that prioritizes federal laws over state ones.
Even though Trump's two cases involving E. Jean Carroll are federal court cases, he can contend that they vary from the Clinton case because they have some connection to the president. One of the cases concerns defamation for remarks made by Trump during his first term as president in 2019. A new Supreme Court, new conditions? Additionally, Trump may contend that the lawsuits he has encountered demonstrate that the Clinton decision was incorrect and ought to be reversed.
Only three serving presidents have ever been sued for their private actions, according to Justice John Paul Stevens' 1997 opinion for the court. If history is any guide, it seems doubtful that the presidency will ever be overtaken by a flood of lawsuits of this nature. Given all of the lawsuits he has encountered during his lifetime, Trump may contend that was flawed logic. A few months before to his first term as president, News8.in revealed that he and his companies were dealing with at least 75 ongoing lawsuits.
Both before and during Trump's 2016 campaign, the cases were filed. Members of the Trump golf club, for instance, said they were not given their money back. Students at Trump University claimed they were defrauded of their tuition for a fraudulent real estate course. According to one class action lawsuit, the Trump campaign sent unsolicited SMS messages in violation of consumer protection rules. Trump has demonstrated his concern for issues and large rewards in the civil fraud and Carroll trials, which were brought after his first term as president. He attended the civil fraud trial for several days and the second E. Jean Carroll trial even though he was not obliged to.
The conservative majority on today's Supreme Court was also receptive to a broad argument for immunity, at least in a criminal context, as demonstrated by the court's July 1 presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States, which dealt with federal charges against Trump for allegedly attempting to illegally overturn the 2020 election. In his majority opinion, Justice John Roberts expressed his concern that unless the justices protected presidents from prosecution for a variety of official activities, a president would be unable to do his duties with courage and boldness for fear of prosecution. Many legal experts were taken aback by the decision, which overturned the rulings of two lower courts. They had anticipated that, even if the Supreme Court did award Trump some protection, it would be more restricted.
Mitchell Epner, a seasoned New York attorney and former federal prosecutor in New Jersey, told news8.in, "I don't know what they're going to do after Trump versus the United States." Clarence Thomas is the only justice remaining on the Supreme Court who joined the Clinton-era opinion. Thomas has occasionally demonstrated that he is particularly open to arguments that support Trump, even though changing his mind would require him to retract his prior vote. He authored a second opinion, referred to as a "concurrence," in the July immunity order that questioned the legality of the appointment of a special counsel in Trump's two federal criminal cases, despite the fact that the court was not yet considering that subject.
Is Trump hinting at a civil immunity case?
This week, Trump submitted a 69-page motion in his criminal case in New York that provides a sneak peek at the kind of defense he would use to try to get his civil cases halted or dismissed entirely. Trump said that his accession to the presidency alters the legal landscape because it gives him obligations as president-elect and as president that the Constitution forbids local prosecutions from interfering with.
In his request, Trump's attorneys stated that it would be unlawful and utterly undemocratic to the people of this nation who elected President Trump as their leader to burden the Presidency with a prejudiced prosecution by a local prosecutor. They stated that because the criminal prosecution presents unacceptable and unconstitutional distractions from President Trump's efforts to govern the country, it should be dismissed rather than just postponed.
Posts
