Post

More from @lawofruby

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Jul 6

Trump was expected to start the GOP convention on 7/15 with a criminal sentence. Now, he’ll go to Milwaukee having told the sentencing judge on 7/10 that the verdict must be set aside because it relied on evidence the prosecutors should never have been allowed to use. 1/

The breadth of the Court’s ruling — especially as it pertains to the admissibility of evidence and the legal irrelevance of a defendant president’s motive or purpose in determining what is and is not off limits — is just starting to reveal itself. 2/

And perhaps what’s worst of all is that underneath all that breadth is a gaping lack of guidance, which means lower court judges striving to do the right thing will almost certainly run afoul of this higher court or that one. 3/

Read 6 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Jul 1

There are two absences in today’s SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity that you should note. First, while making clear there is no immunity for unofficial acts, the majority doesn’t carve out any alleged conduct in the indictment that is definitively NOT immune. 1/

And that’s not because they are allergic to categorical determinations. Today’s decision makes clear that all alleged conduct stemming from Trump’s interactions with and/or direction of DOJ is absolutely immune. Why? 2/

Because, as Roberts writes, “[i]nvestigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is ‘the special province of the Executive Branch,’ and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power of the President.” 3/

Read 7 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Jul 1

You might be hearing that a president still could be prosecuted even for official acts if the presumption of immunity is rebutted. But that ignores three more granular features of the opinion that are akin to prosecutorial roadblocks. 1/

First, the bar to rebut that presumption is HIGH. The court says the question to ask is whether prosecuting the official act in question “would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” 2/

Second, the government can never use evidence of official acts that don’t clear that bar. Put another way, if it can’t be charged, it can’t come in, even to inform the jury’s understanding of a president’s knowledge or intent. 3/

Read 8 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Jun 28

My favorite law school class was legislation (aka statutory interpretation)—and my read of the Fischer decision, putting on that hat, is textualism is a false god for the majority. 1/

There is literally no effort to deal with the plain language of the statute at issue; instead, the majority jumps right to what is usually a second-level analysis: How what it calls the “residual clause” should be understood from its surrounding words and structure? 2/

The majority ultimately determines that the residual clause is limited to obstruction or impairment of the integrity or availability of the use of evidence in an official proceedings. 3/

Read 6 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Jun 25

In lifting portions of the gag order today, Judge Merchan did remove the restrictions pertaining to jurors, but he left in place another order concerning the jury. And that order matters. 1/

Specifically, the judge notes that because of the "ample evidence to justify continued concern for the jurors," the protections laid out in a March 2024 order "regulating disclosure of juror information" will stay in place until he decides otherwise. 2/

What are those protections? A restriction on disclosure of the jurors' home and business addresses other than to counsel of record and, more importantly, a prohibition on the disclosure of juror names other than to each side, its lawyers, and their staff and consultants.

Read 5 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Jun 21

I try not to tweet and talk simultaneously (and just came off air from another SCOTUS decision morning), but the Manhattan DA’s brief mostly opposing the lifting of the gag order deserves attention today. 1/

When the DA first sought a gag order, it presented evidence of the threats dating back to last year. But
now, he cites recent, serious threats, including “bomb threats at the homes of two people involved in this case” on the first day of trial & online death threats to the DA and his employees. 2/

Note that the DA does not want the gag order to remain in place in its entirety. They agree with Trump that it is no longer needed with respect to trial witnesses. 3/

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Lisa Rubin

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @lawofruby

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!