The Legal Fallout of Trump’s Immunity

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Podcast: Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick
Host: Slate Podcasts (hosted by Andrea Bernstein, guesting for Dahlia Lithwick)
Episode: The Legal Fallout of Trump’s Immunity (August 31, 2024)

This episode examines the sweeping consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, which ruled on presidential immunity for official acts. Host Andrea Bernstein is joined by Slate jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl. Together, they break down how this landmark ruling is impacting Donald Trump’s various criminal cases—including new indictments, dismissed cases, and delayed sentences—and why these changes reach far beyond Trump’s fate.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Supreme Court’s Trump v. United States Ruling

• On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision on whether presidents can be criminally prosecuted for official acts.
  • The Court held, 6–3, that presidents have “absolute immunity from prosecution” for official acts. (01:06, D)
  • The decision was split along ideological lines, delaying Trump’s federal election subversion trial until after the November election. (01:21, C)

Notable Quote:

"The justices say a president now has, quote, absolute immunity from prosecution when it comes to so-called official acts." — [D, 01:06]

2. The Broader Impact on American Democracy

• Host Andrea Bernstein highlights how the ruling is much more than a Trump story, echoing Dahlia Lithwick’s earlier analysis from July 1st.
• The ruling is characterized as a “separation of powers” story and, more broadly, “a structural change to democracy as we understand it.” (01:45, F)

Notable Quote:

“This is going to get covered as a Donald Trump story. This is not a Donald Trump story. This is a separation of power story and fundamentally a structural change to democracy as we understand it.” — [F, 01:45]

3. Immediate Effects Across Multiple Trump Criminal Cases

• The ruling’s ripple effect is being felt in all pending Trump cases:
  • Washington, D.C.: Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment in the January 6 case, tailored to the new guidance from the Supreme Court.
  • Florida: Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump, citing Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in Trump v. US.
  • Georgia: Mark Meadows, Trump’s former Chief of Staff, is seeking to have the RICO case against him dismissed, using the same immunity argument.
  • New York: Sentencing in Trump's recently concluded criminal case has been delayed as the judge considers the ruling’s ramifications. (02:20–03:27, A)

4. Deep Dive: The New Superseding Indictment in the January 6 Case

• Jeremy Stahl explains the overhaul of the D.C. indictment:
  • The new indictment responds directly to the Supreme Court’s limits, cutting references to “official acts” the Court protected.
  • Pages trimmed (from 45 to 36), with references to Trump’s influence on the DOJ largely removed.
  • Actions related to Vice President Pence and the January 6 vote count remain, as the Supreme Court’s guidance here was less clear.
    (03:49–05:48, D & A)

Notable Quote:

“Jack Smith has responded by basically doing a do-over. He put forward a new indictment... it removes references to actions that Trump took to influence the Department of Justice to try to overturn the election, because the Supreme Court very explicitly ruled that that could not be part of [the charges].” — [D, 04:19]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:06–01:31: Recap of Trump v. United States Supreme Court ruling and its immediate legal impact
• 01:45: Dahlia Lithwick on the ruling’s broader democratic implications
• 02:20–03:27: Overview of how the ruling has affected Trump’s criminal cases across the country
• 03:49–05:48: Jeremy Stahl breaks down the superseding indictment in the D.C. election subversion case

---

Memorable Quotes

• “The justices say a president now has, quote, absolute immunity from prosecution when it comes to so called official acts.” — D, 01:06
• “This is going to get covered as a Donald Trump story. This is not a Donald Trump story. This is a separation of power story and fundamentally a structural change to democracy as we understand it.” — F, 01:45
• “Jack Smith has responded by basically doing a do-over. He put forward a new indictment... it removes references to actions that Trump took to influence the Department of Justice to try to overturn the election…” — D, 04:19

---

Conclusion

This episode reveals how the Supreme Court’s definition of presidential immunity has reshaped not just Trump’s various criminal proceedings, but also the legal landscape for presidential accountability. The analysis underscores how this pivotal case will reverberate through future prosecutions, court strategies, and even the foundations of American democracy.

---

(Note: This summary covers content available in the public portion of the episode. The remainder of the episode is exclusive to Slate Plus subscribers.)

Transcript

[A]

Hello, and welcome to the Law According to Trump from Amicus, Slate's podcast about the courts and the law. I'm Andrea Bernstein, sitting in for Dahlia Lithwick for the fifth and final episode of our series about how Donald Trump deploys the law, how he's used lawyers and lawsuits and sometimes even judges to enhance his brand, his money and his power. This week on the show, perhaps the apex of the law according to Trump, the immunity case and its fallout. Remember July 1, the day the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. United States.

[B]

This is the big one we've been waiting for.

[C]

In one of its most anticipated rulings of the year, we have word that.

[B]

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during the tenure of President Trump.

[D]

The justices say a president now has, quote, absolute immunity from prosecution when it comes to so called official acts.

[E]

Today's 6 to 3 decision, hailed by Mr. Trump as a, quote, big win for our Constitution and democracy.

[C]

The 63 ruling was split along ideological lines, and it will most likely delay Trump's future federal election subversion trial until after the November election.

[A]

And here on amicus on July 1, the last day of this past Supreme Court term, Dalia was already clear on the ramifications of a decision that was much more sweeping than most people imagined.

[F]

This is going to get covered as a Donald Trump story. This is not a Donald Trump story. This is a separation of power story and fundamentally a structural change to democracy as we understand it.

[A]

That is true. Trump vus is a story about democracy. But when the opinion was first issued, a lot of us were thinking about what it meant for the case at hand, the one that had prompted Trump's appeal. The Jan. 6 case brought by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C. before Judge Tanya Chutkan. We're starting to get a clearer picture on that case. On Tuesday, special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment shaped to the contours of the Supreme Court's immunity decision. But Trump VUS hasn't only affected the Jack Smith January 6th prosecution. It's affected every criminal case against Trump. In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case, alleging Trump illegally handled classified documents, citing Clarence Thomas's concurrence in Trump vus. In Georgia, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is trying to get the RICO case against him dismissed based on the theory that Trump vus gave him immunity, too. And in New York, the judge in the one case against Trump that went to trial and resulted in a guilty verdict, has delayed sentencing in order to consider the ramifications of the Supreme Court's immunity decision. So today on amicus, we're going to talk about all the criminal cases against Trump and how Trump v. US Changed their trajectory. And joining us to do that, I cannot think of a better person to talk to. And Slate's own jurisprudence editor, Jeremy Stahl, my partner in I don't want to say partner in crime, but my partner in covering Trump's crimes in Manhattan, my criminal courthouse line buddy and expert on all things Trump legal. Welcome, Jeremy.

[D]

Hi, Andrea. Really great to be back chatting with you.

[A]

Let's start with this week's big news and the new superseding indictment in Jack Smith's election subversion case against Trump in Washington. The charges remain broadly the same, but the case has changed. So walk us through that.

[D]

As you noted, this is the case that was most directly affected by the Trump v. US Decision back in July, and it was the one that was part of that appeal to the Supreme Court, right, where the question was, does Donald Trump and do future presidents have some degree of immunity for actions, official acts that they've taken in office that can't then be prosecuted later as crimes, even if they're criminal? That's the case that Trump won. And now we're seeing the ramifications of that this week with Jack Smith having to respond to this decision, throwing a big wrench in his previous indictment and his case against Trump. And the way that Jack Smith has responded is by basically doing a do over. He put forward a new indictment, a superseding indictment. It's the same four charges. It's much of the same factual information, but it's written in a way and shortened in a way. The original indictment was 40, 35 pages. This one's 36. So nine pages cut. And it's written in a way to basically abide by this Supreme Court ruling. It removes references to actions that Trump took to influence the Department of Justice to try to overturn the election, because the Supreme Court very explicitly ruled that that could not be part of reworked passages around Vice President Pence's role in counting the electoral votes in January 6, but it continue to include those because while the Supreme Court sort of warned Jack Smith off of potentially using that in his charges against Trump, it did not say he could not do so. So there's small and subtle changes, but the framework largely remains the same. I would.

[A]

The rest of this episode is available exclusively to Slate plus subscribers. Join now by clicking Try free at the top of the Amicus show page on Apple podcasts, or visit slate.comamicusplus to get access wherever you listen. By subscribing to Slate plus, not only will you unlock members only episodes of Amicus, but you'll also get full access to all your favorite Slate podcasts, all ad free.