As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House in January, he continues to face an avalanche of lawsuits against him. Professor of Law at Syracuse University Gregory Germain monitored criminal and civil cases.
In this article, Professor Germain summarizes the status of all cases and discusses what happened next. If you would like to schedule an interview, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, Executive Director of Media Relations at ejmbuqe@syr.edu.
Criminal cases
- Falsification of Business Records, New York Law. Trump was found guilty and is expected to be sentenced on a class E felony charge of falsifying business records in the criminal case filed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and pending before Judge Juan Merchan. He faces a prison sentence in this case.
- Election interference, Georgia law. Trump was indicted in Georgia by prosecutor Fani Willis for election interference. The case was mired in controversy following revelations that Willis had an affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee allowed Willis to pursue prosecution if Wade resigned, which he did, but the case was derailed by an appeal from Trump and others accused.
- Classified documents – Federal law. Trump was indicted by special counsel Jack Smith for stealing, retaining and making false statements about classified documents he took from the White House after losing the 2020 election. The case was assigned to the judge district Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump, and was canceled by the 11th.th Circuit Court of Appeals for prior rulings improperly taking jurisdiction and appointing special master during document theft investigation. Judge Cannon dismissed the charges against Trump on a technicality, finding that Jack Smith’s appointment under the Justice Department’s special counsel regulations, and the regulations themselves, violated the Trump Appointments Clause. the Constitution. Cannon did not give the government a chance to remedy the Elections Clause’s deficiencies, such as by appointing a Senate-approved U.S. Attorney to oversee the case. Cannon’s decision is on appeal before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Election interference – Federal law. Trump was indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith for election interference in the 2020 election. The case was delayed due to controversy regarding the standard of presidential immunity. The trial court and the D.C. Circuit have ruled that a former president has no immunity for crimes committed while in office. The Supreme Court reversed this decision in Trump v. United Statesruling that a president enjoys broad immunity for actions taken, even in bad faith, and for personal gain largely related to his official duties. Prosecutor Jack Smith attempted to narrow the indictment to accommodate the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, but serious questions about immunity remain. The case is pending before Judge Tanja Chutkan, appointed by Barack Obama.
Civil affairs
- Defamation – New York Law. E. Jean Carroll recovered an $83,300,000 civil judgment against Trump in Manhattan for defamation. Carroll claimed that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her at a department store in the 1990s and claimed that Trump’s denials and attacks constituted defamation. Trump posted bond and was granted a stay pending appeal, and the case is on appeal.
- Financial Statement Fraud – New York Law. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for election on a promise to “defeat Trump,” filed a civil suit against Trump for disgorgement of gains made using an inflated personal financial statement used in the search insurance policies and obtaining secured claims for its subsidiaries from sophisticated lenders. State Court Judge Arthur F. Engoron awarded the Attorney General $363,800,000 in damages, which now totals more than $450,000,000 with interest. The court also barred Trump and other executives from serving as directors of a New York company and appointed a receiver to liquidate Trump’s company. The Court of Appeal granted a special stay pending appeal following the posting of a reduced bond of $175,000,000. The liberal 1st The department’s Appellate Division raised questions about the merits of the ruling.
There is little doubt that the federal prosecution brought by Jack Smith will end.
Gregory Germain
What happens in criminal cases?
The Ministry of Justice issued two detailed opinions, one in 1973 and the other in 2000discussing the scope of a sitting president’s immunity from criminal and civil actions. In both opinions, the department determined that a sitting president cannot be charged, prosecuted, or imprisoned for any criminal action while in office. The ministry based both decisions on the principles of separation of powers – reasoning that the indictment, prosecution or imprisonment of a sitting president would allow one branch of government (the judiciary) to interfere with another branch of government (the executive). No other executive (including the vice president – a contemporary concern for Vice President Spiro Agnew in 1973) would enjoy such immunity. The notices also apply to federal and state prosecutions.
So it is clear that the federal prosecution of Jack Smith will not continue, even if Trump has not pardoned himself or had Smith removed from office and replaced with a loyal alternative. And all indications are that Trump will try to impeach Smith or accept his resignation, or more likely pardon himself. Although the department has another opinion rejecting the president’s power to self-pardon, the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling declared that the president’s pardon power is unlimited – even suggesting that the corrupt sale of pardons does not would not affect the validity of the pardons. So I have no doubt that the majority of the Supreme Court would uphold self-pardon. There is therefore little doubt that the federal prosecution brought by Jack Smith will be closed.
The President’s pardon power does not extend to prosecutions against the State. However, the Justice Department’s separation of powers decisions apply to all criminal prosecutions, state and federal. According to the Justice Department, it seems clear that criminal prosecutions should be stayed while President Trump is in office. There is even an argument in these opinions that the cases should be dismissed because the opinions believe that an indictment of a sitting president who has been suspended from further prosecution while in office would interfere with the functioning of the presidency. The same could be argued for a barely reprieve. I also have no doubt that the current Supreme Court would agree with the separation of powers arguments made in the Justice Department’s decisions. In its ruling on immunity, the Supreme Court took the broadest possible view of presidential immunity, and even the dissenting justices expressed concerns that politically motivated lawsuits interfered with the president’s functioning. It is therefore highly likely that the state’s criminal cases will be suspended during Trump’s presidency. If they try to continue the prosecution, or even impose a suspended sentence, I suspect the decisions will be overturned on appeal. It is even possible that the files will be closed without further action.
What happens in civil cases?
The outcome of the civil cases is much more uncertain. There are two important civil precedents from the Supreme Court: Nixon v. Fitzgerald457 U.S. 731 (1982)And Clinton vs. Jones520 U.S. 681 (1997). In Nixon v. Fitzgeraldthe Court recognized that the sitting president is largely immune from liability in civil actions for official conduct, both during his term and afterward. The case has limited applicability to the three civil actions discussed above because all of the alleged acts (defamation, falsification of business records, and inflating of financial statements) had nothing to do with his official acts and those acts had no did not occur primarily while he was in office. desk.
The second case, Clinton vs. Jonesinvolved civil charges brought by Paula Jones for alleged misconduct before Clinton took office and unrelated to her official duties. The Supreme Court held that civil suits could proceed, but that the court should make special provision for the president’s participation in the action so as not to interfere with the exercise of his presidential duties, suggesting that any deposition should be taken at the White House and that the president could not be forced to testify live). The Clinton case therefore suggests that appeals in civil cases can proceed, as they are unlikely to require the personal participation of President Trump. If, as I probably believe due to legal errors and excessive sentences, the civil cases were overturned on appeal and remanded for new trials, remand courts would have to be very careful to conduct a fair trial without interfering with the official duties of the president.
If the election shows anything, it’s that the public doesn’t like politically motivated prosecutions and indictments.
Gregory Germain
Thoughts on the future of politically motivated prosecutions
The Democratic Party and its politically motivated government prosecutors must also reconsider their actions. If the election shows anything, it’s that the public doesn’t like politically motivated prosecutions and indictments. The argument that Trump was a convicted felon backfired, as the public viewed him as a victim of biased, politically motivated prosecutions filed in Democratic strongholds. The ball is now in Trump’s court to see if he will follow through on his threats to “do unto others what they did to him.” If he follows through on his threats, I suspect his support will fade quickly.