Donald Trump’s election subversion case is dead, an attorney has told Newsweek.
Greg Germain, an attorney for many years and a law professor at Syracuse University in New York, said that a president could now lawfully assassinate a rival or accept bribes under the Supreme Court‘s July 1 ruling, which gave presidents broad immunity from prosecution.
Prosecutor Jack Smith submitted a new indictment in court on Tuesday, in reaction to the ruling (included, below). But Germain said that when Trump challenges the new indictment before the Supreme Court, it will be officially killed off.
“While the lower courts may try to interpret their way around the [Supreme] Court’s decision, ultimately I think the election interference case is dead before the Supreme Court.”
Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally on August 23, 2024 in Glendale, Arizona. Prosecutors have filed a new indictment in Trump’s election subversion case.
Rebecca Noble/Getty Images
“And if Trump wins the election, the Court’s opinion leaves little doubt that he could pardon himself or appoint people to the justice department who will dismiss the case,” he said.
Trump was indicted on four counts of allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. The Republican presidential nominee has pleaded not guilty and has said the case is part of a political witch hunt.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on July 1 that presidents have broad immunity for official acts. The court said that presidents have absolute immunity for core political acts and have some immunity for other acts committed as president, but no immunity for strictly private conduct.
It also ruled that official acts cannot be used as evidence if taking a case against a president for unofficial acts, a part of the ruling that is highly relevant to the Trump case.
Newsweek sought email comment on Thursday from attorneys for Trump and from the office of special counsel Smith.
Germain said he was surprised by how much immunity the Supreme Court was willing to grant presidents. The decision overturned a Washington D.C. Circuit Court ruling, which set a very narrow course for presidential immunity.
“I have tried in my public comments about the Trump cases to put my personal opinions aside and focus on how I think the courts will rule on the cases,” Germain said.
“I expected the Supreme Court to overturn the DC Circuits’ immunity decision by recognizing broad presidential immunity for core presidential activities as a necessary incident of presidential power.”
“But I also expected the Court to exempt from that broad immunity the most corrupt and anti-democratic actions done for personal benefit rather than the perceived good of the country. The key distinction, I thought, was the motive of the president. I was wrong,” he said.
Echoing the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, Germain said the Supreme Court has given presidents’ immunity from almost any criminal conduct while in office.
“The Court held that presidential immunity applies regardless of a president’s corrupt and personal motives. A president would be immune from prosecution for selling pardons to the highest bidder or assassinating a political rival, and there is a broad presumption that activities having any connection to the presidency are not private activities,” he said.
“As I read the opinion, only purely private activities, having no relation to the role of the president, would be subject to prosecution. The sole remedy for public impropriety is impeachment,” he said.
“While I doubt that any member of the constitutional convention, even the most monarchical, would have agreed with that opinion given their broad concern about corruption, that is my reading of the Court’s ruling.”
