News

Judge Rips Supreme Court Immunity Ruling in FBI Records Case Related to Trump

Supreme Court justices

A federal judge blasted the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision on Monday as she ruled in a Freedom of Information Act case related to the FBI’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s hoarding of classified documents.

The Context

Journalist Jason Leopold filed a FOIA request to obtain FBI records related to the classified documents case, in which Trump was charged with 37 counts of violating the Espionage Act, conspiring to obstruct justice, lying to law enforcement and breaking three laws related to concealing and withholding government records.

The special counsel Jack Smith, whose office brought the charges, had the case dismissed after Trump won the 2024 election, citing a longstanding Justice Department policy that prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president.

U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor bow their heads during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of…


Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

What To Know

Howell ruled Monday that the FBI must disclose more records related to the Trump classified documents case, ordering the bureau to go through its files for documents that were responsive to Leopold’s FOIA request.

In her ruling, Howell also ripped the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, citing the liberal justices’ dissent condemning the decision as a “mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

“Of course, while the Supreme Court has provided a protective and presumptive immunity cloak for a president’s conduct, that cloak is not so large to extend to those who aid, abet and execute criminal acts behalf of a criminally immune president,” Howell continued in her ruling. “The excuse offered after World War II by enablers of the fascist Nazi regime of ‘just following orders’ has long been rejected in this country’s jurisprudence.”

The high court ruled 6-3 in the case, Trump v. United States, with the conservative justices making up the majority and the court’s liberals offering scathing dissents.

What People Are Saying

The…

Click Here to Read the Full Original Article at Newsweek…