Chuck Darwin<p>Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report </p><p>John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly <br />– and in favor <br />– of Donald Trump <br />ahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.</p><p>The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on <br />– and generally favoring<br /> – the Republican former president.</p><p>Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts<br /> – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency<br /> – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.</p><p>In addition to the presidential immunity ruling, the decisions collectively barred states from removing any official<br /> – including Trump <br />– from a federal ballot as well as declaring the government had overstepped with respect to obstruction of justice charges filed against participants of the 6 January 2021 attack that the former president’s supporters aimed at Congress.</p><p>The Times reported that last February, Roberts sent a memo to his fellow supreme court justices regarding the criminal charges against Trump for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.</p><p>In the <a href="https://c.im/tags/leaked" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>leaked</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/memo" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>memo</span></a>, the Times reported that he criticized a lower court decision that allowed the case to move forward <br />– and he argued to the other justices that Trump was protected by presidential immunity. </p><p>He reportedly said that the supreme court ought to hear the case and grant Trump greater protection from prosecution.</p><p>“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” the Times said that Roberts wrote to the other supreme court justices in the private memo.</p><p>According to the Times, some of the conservative justices wanted to delay the decision on the presidential immunity case until after Trump finished running for a second term in the White House in November. </p><p>But Roberts advocated for an early hearing and decision <br />– and ultimately wrote the majority opinion himself.</p><p>Before the opinion and ruling went public, the Times reported that Justice Brett <a href="https://c.im/tags/Kavanaugh" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Kavanaugh</span></a> had praised Roberts on the ruling, <br />calling it “extraordinary”. </p><p>Their fellow conservative justice Neil <a href="https://c.im/tags/Gorsuch" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Gorsuch</span></a> <br />– who, like Kavanaugh, was appointed to the supreme court during Trump’s presidency <br />– called it “remarkable”.</p><p>The decision came out on 1 July and stated that former presidents are entitled to some degree of <a href="https://c.im/tags/immunity" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>immunity</span></a> from criminal prosecution. </p><p>Both conservatives and liberals saw it as a huge win for Trump, who <br />– among a spate of legal problems <br />– is awaiting sentencing for a criminal conviction in May of falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments to an adult film actor who alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him.</p><p>The supreme court then returned the case to district judge Tanya <a href="https://c.im/tags/Chutkan" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Chutkan</span></a>, who is overseeing the federal case against Trump for allegedly participating in 💥an illicit effort to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election. </p><p>That left her tasked with having to figure out how to apply the US supreme court’s decision.</p><p>The Times also reported that in the case about 💥whether individual states could kick Trump off the ballot<br /> based on language in the US constitution which bars insurrections from holding office, <br />⚠️ Roberts told his colleagues that he wanted the decision to be <a href="https://c.im/tags/unanimous" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>unanimous</span></a> and <a href="https://c.im/tags/unsigned" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>unsigned</span></a>.</p><p>All nine justices initially agreed that Trump should remain on state ballots. </p><p>♦️But then, the Times reports, four conservative justices suggested additions to the ruling, <br />❌ including proposing that Congress would have to approve enforcement of the insurrectionist ban in the constitution.</p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/16/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump-immunity-ruling?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">theguardian.com/us-news/2024/s</span><span class="invisible">ep/16/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump-immunity-ruling?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other</span></a></p>