• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
160 results

Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States

Docket 23-939, Supreme Court of the United States (Feb. 28, 2024)
Petitioner Donald J. Trump
Respondent United States
Other Citizens Equal Rights Foundation
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

01-2024

Document Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States, 23-939, 01-2024 (U.S. Jul. 1, 2024)
It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—in- vite the jury to examine acts for which a President is im- mune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.
And none of them indicate whether he may be prosecuted for his official con- duct.
7 Cite as: 603 U. S. (2024) THOMAS, J., concurring None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General ap- pears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and espe- cially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose.
3–4, the President has none.
No dangers, none at all.
17 Cite as: 603 U. S. (2024) SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting If the case nonetheless makes it to trial, the Government will bear the burden of proving every element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury of the ...
None of the same complications or consequences arise, because, as I have explained, there are no exemptions from the criminal law for any person, but every defendant can assert whatever legal arguments and defenses might be ...
This much is clear: Before today, none of these kinds of inquiries was necessary for criminal liability to be fairly as- sessed with respect to persons accused of having engaged in criminal conduct. And, frankly, none is needed now—ex- ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED

Document Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States, 23-939, Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED (U.S. Jul. 1, 2024)
It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—in- vite the jury to examine acts for which a President is im- mune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.
And none of them indicate whether he may be prosecuted for his official con- duct.
7 Cite as: 603 U. S. (2024) THOMAS, J., concurring None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General ap- pears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and espe- cially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose.
3–4, the President has none.
No dangers, none at all.
17 Cite as: 603 U. S. (2024) SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting If the case nonetheless makes it to trial, the Government will bear the burden of proving every element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury of the ...
None of the same complications or consequences arise, because, as I have explained, there are no exemptions from the criminal law for any person, but every defendant can assert whatever legal arguments and defenses might be ...
This much is clear: Before today, none of these kinds of inquiries was necessary for criminal liability to be fairly as- sessed with respect to persons accused of having engaged in criminal conduct. And, frankly, none is needed now—ex- ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Application for a stay submitted to The - Proof of Service

Document Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States, 23-939, Application for a stay submitted to The, Proof of Service (U.S. Feb. 12, 2024)
In the Supreme Court of the United States No. ______
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Application for a stay submitted to The

Document Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States, 23-939, Application for a stay submitted to The (U.S. Feb. 12, 2024)
And none of the dissimilar his- torical examples on which petitioner relies suggests otherwise.
... influencing pri- vate employment or accepting campaign contributions in federal buildings, while exempting him from every other federal criminal statute, including those barring bribery, murder, treason, and seditious conspiracy— 26 none ...
None states that conviction by the Sen- ate is a prerequisite to a former President’s criminal prosecution.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Application for a stay submitted to The - Main Document

Document Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States, 23-939, Application for a stay submitted to The, Main Document (U.S. Feb. 12, 2024)
The Special Counsel, by contrast, “request[ed] the Court to issue the mandate five days after the entry of judgment,” citing (as it had done to this Court) the supposed, but nonexistent, “imperative public importance of a prompt resolution ...
None is convincing.
None of these cases provides any authority for Article III courts to sit in judgment directly over the President’s official acts; and none contradicts the still-binding holding of Marbury that such acts “can never be examinable by the courts.” ...
It also declines to grapple with President Trump’s long series of real-world, historical examples of former Presidents accused of criminal behavior through their official acts—none of whom, in 234 years, ever faced prosecution, despite ...
Under the Blockburger test, none of the four offenses alleged in the Indictment is the same as the sole offense charged in the article of impeachment.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Judgment Issued Rev 8524 - Main Document

Document Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States, 23-939, Judgment Issued Rev 8524, Main Document (U.S. Aug. 2, 2024)
Supreme Court of the United States
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the United States Court of Appeals for the
above court and was argued by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this
Court that the judgment of the above court is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of this Court.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioner Donald J Trump filed - Main Document

Document Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States, 23-939, Reply of petitioner Donald J Trump filed, Main Document (U.S. Apr. 15, 2024)
In politically charged cases, “[t]he tendency is strong to emphasize transient results … and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 634 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).
The Constitution does not erect “a hermetic division among the Branches,” but “a carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power within each Branch.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 381 (1989); see also, e.g., Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring); Perez v. Mortg.
Respondent also overlooks the inevitable “distortion of the Executive’s ‘decisionmaking process’ with respect to official acts,” Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2426 (2020), and the “atmosphere of intimidation that would conflict with [his] resolve to perform [his] designated functions in a principled fashion,” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 693 (1997) (citation omitted).
Respondent quotes The Federalist No. 77, Resp.Br.14, but there, Hamilton wrote that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law” (emphasis added).
Moreover, “the ideas and themes discussed in explaining why the Senate was superior to the Supreme Court in passing public judgment upon the conduct of the President apply, a fortiori, to a single prosecutor attempting to do so.” Kavanaugh, 86 GEO.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 11 12 >>