Mass. pols outraged by Trump immunity case ruling

BOSTON — Members of the state’s all-Democratic congressional delegation are blasting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that Donald Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions the Republican took in the final days of his presidency.

The high court’s historic 6-3 ruling on Monday held that there’s “no immunity for unofficial acts” by a sitting president, but that Trump is “entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts” as the top elected official.

“The president is not above the law,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s majority. “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.”

Bay State Democrats expressed outrage over the court’s conservative majority’s ruling, with U.S. Rep. Lori Trahan saying the ruling effectively “creates two tiers of justice — one for Donald Trump and another for the rest of us.”

“The notion that a sitting president can knowingly break the law to benefit himself and be immune from prosecution is disgraceful,” the Westford Democrat said in a statement. “The United States was founded on the belief that no one is above the law, not even the leader of our country.”

Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, a Revere Democrat, said the ruling “makes a mockery of America’s democratic system and further undercuts the credibility of the Supreme Court — demonstrating once again that the MAGA Justices are more loyal to partisan politics than the rule of law.”

“With today’s decision, the Supreme Court has abdicated its responsibility to unequivocally declare that in America, no one is above the law,” the Revere Democrat said. “This decision undermines a founding principle — that we are a country of laws and accountability, not absolute power and privilege.”

Rep. Seth Moulton, a Salem Democrat, said the nation’s founding fathers “must by rolling in their graves” over the court’s ruling.

“This is a truly chilling decision,” he said. “It means that if a President wanted to accept a bribe in exchange for a pardon they could — and likely with impunity.”

Sen. Ed Markey, who has pushed to expand the number of justices on the high court, said the conservative majority “has politicized our highest court, undermined its legitimacy, and has created a dangerous ‘absolute’ immunity for a president’s official acts.”

“This is a rogue, untethered, and damaging Supreme Court,” Markey said in a statement. “MAGA extremist justices also are ignoring the festering corruption in their ranks. We need justices committed to justice. Stolen seats filled with partisan hacks lead to alarming results.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling, which kicks the issue back to the lower federal courts for more deliberations, is expected to set new standards for presidential powers. It will also affect whether the presumptive GOP presidential nominee stands trial for his actions in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden by a margin of 7 million popular votes.

Trump has claimed presidential immunity as part of a legal maneuver to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

Trump has been charged with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. He pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing.

The trial was set to start March 4 but was delayed while the Supreme Court weighed the immunity question.

In a previous ruling in the election subversion case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s claims, saying regardless of any authority a sitting president has, the post “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals later unanimously rejected Trump’s claims, warning if they were to be accepted they would “collapse our system of separated powers.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority’s ruling “reshapes the institution of the presidency” and “makes a mockery” of the constitutional principle that no man is above the law.

In another minority opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the majority’s ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground” by granting immunity “only to the most powerful official” the U.S. government. She said that her conservative colleagues were essentially “discarding” the nation’s long-held principle that no one is above the law.

“That core principle has long prevented our Nation from devolving into despotism,” Brown Jackson said. “Yet the court now opts to let down the guardrails of the law for one extremely powerful category of citizen: any future President who has the will to flout Congress’s established boundaries.”