The United States Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: The indictment also contains various allegations regarding Trump’s conduct in connection with the events of January 6 itself. The alleged conduct largely consists of Trump’s communications in the...
The Supreme Court continued in relevant part: The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to...
The Supreme Court continued in relevant part: The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the...
The Chief Justice continued in relevant part: When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Fitzgerald, 456 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an action is covered by...
Chief Justice Roberts continued in relevant part: But there is also a compelling “public interest in fair and effective law enforcement.” Vance, 591 U. S., at 808. Considering these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles...
The Supreme Court continued in relevant part: In Fitzgerald, for instance, the Court concluded that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from “damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Id., at 756. The...
Chief Justice Roberts continued in relevant part: Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His...
On July 1, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Trump v. United States. The principal issue concerned the nature and scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecutions. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority in relevant part: A...
On July 1, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Monmouth County case of IMO Registrant J.A. The principal issue before the Court under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2 concerned the standard for Megan’s Law registration termination for juveniles. The unanimous per curiam...
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: In In re Registrant H.D., the Court held that individuals who apply to terminate their Megan's Law requirements must demonstrate they have been offense-free for fifteen years from the time of conviction for...