The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in *Trump v. United States* established a broad interpretation of “presidential immunity,” suggesting a president may be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for actions falling within their “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” This invention, not explicitly found in the Constitution, has emboldened former President Trump and his allies, who appear to believe they are shielded from future accountability for potential misconduct. Critics argue that this ruling, particularly the notion that it could shield presidents from bribery or ordering assassinations, is a misinterpretation of constitutional principles and alien to American traditions.
Read More
Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan, arrested for allegedly obstructing ICE agents, is arguing for dismissal based on judicial immunity. Her motion cites the Supreme Court’s *Trump v. United States* ruling granting broad presidential immunity for official acts, arguing that a similar standard should apply to judges. The motion contends that prosecuting Dugan violates federalism and that her actions, even if construed as aiding the undocumented immigrant, fell within her authority to maintain courtroom control. The case has sparked intense political debate, with supporters portraying Dugan as a resistance hero and critics hoping for further actions against the judiciary.
Read More
My Supreme Court victory in *Trump v. United States* secured a historic win on presidential immunity, crucial in countering the “lawfare” attacks against me and the MAGA movement. During arguments, I successfully argued for broad presidential immunity, even extending to hypothetical scenarios involving actions such as assassinations. While acknowledging hypotheticals, my position maintained that such actions, if deemed “official acts,” would fall under this immunity. This ruling is a key defense against politically motivated legal challenges.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker