Chief Justice Roberts pushed SCOTUS decision on immunity

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern writing for Slate this week: 

On Sunday, New York Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak published a blockbuster article about the conservative justices’ efforts to shield Donald Trump from any consequences for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. This is what Supreme Court reporting needs to become: less credulous academic translating of a handful of judicial opinions and more cultivation of inside sources, procuring of confidential memos, and production of massive scoops. More to the point, their piece—about how the three Jan. 6 cases decided last year in favor of Donald J. Trump came together—contains several remarkable news bombshells, including the fact that Justice Samuel Alito had the opinion in the Capitol assault case, Fischer v. United States, taken away from him by Chief Justice John Roberts; that the liberal justices were working to try to get the majorities to moderate maximalist positions in all three cases; and that Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have pushed the immunity case to be decided after the 2024 election. But the biggest revelation here is that the character John Roberts plays as an affable centrist steward of the court’s reputational interests—created largely in the press and played to the hilt by him—is a total fiction. It was Roberts who decided that Trump and Trumpism would prevail in all three insurrection cases and he did not, in this instance, follow in the wake of the court’s aggressive conservative maximalists. He was the aggressive conservative maximalist. And he created majority opinions in his own image.

A singular revelation in the Times’ reporting is a memo Roberts produced in February of 2024, after a cross-ideological panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed down a decision rejecting Trump’s claims that he was almost wholly immune from criminal liability for actions taken during his time as president. In his confidential memo, the chief justice “offered a scathing critique” of that opinion, complaining that the lower court judges “failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.” He inveighed that the Supreme Court should take the case—which would hold up Trump’s criminal trial slated for the summer—but also previewed how the justices would reverse the lower-level ruling. “I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently” from the appeals court, he warned. From that point onward, it appears he was committed to a sweeping decision for the former president—and never seemed to wonder if a massive victory for Trump might imperil American democracy.

To read more CLICK HERE