U.S. Supreme Court immunity ruling likely further delays Fulton racketeering case

Caption

Booking photos from the Fulton County conspiracy case charging Donald Trump and allies with trying to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. Top row, from left Jeffrey Clark, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Michael Roman, Ray Smith, David Shafer, Sen. Shawn Still. Center row, from left, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro. Bottom row from left, Robert Cheeley, Harrison Floyd, Stephen Lee, Scott Hall, Misty Hampton, Cathleen Latham, Trevian Kutti.

Credit: Fulton County Sheriff’s Office

A U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday establishing a legal standard for presidential immunity could further slow down Georgia’s 2020 presidential election interference case, several legal experts predict.

The nation’s highest court ruling Monday shields U.S. presidents from criminal prosecution while engaging in “official” conduct related to their “core constitutional” presidential acts and removes immunity if the conduct is unrelated to their “unofficial” responsibilities. The ruling is in response to a federal election interference case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against Trump, who is accused of allegedly plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

According to the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, Trump’s claim of blanket presidential immunity was rejected and a legal test was established as to what type of presidential conduct is protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Several other pending criminal cases against Trump will be affected by Monday’s ruling, including a case in Fulton County Superior Court where Trump and 14 co-defendants are accused of committing felonies while conspiring to rig the 2020 presidential election.

The Supreme Court decision is another blow to the already minimal chances of jury selection in the Fulton election interference case beginning prior to the Nov. 5 presidential election. The fight over immunity is expected to draw out the case into 2025, with multiple court motions and appeals taking place, according to Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University.

The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t directly impact Trump’s co-defendants in Georgia, which include several members of Trump’s inner circle, former Trump attorneys, and other Republican allies. Four of his indicted co-defendants who pleaded guilty last year reached agreements with prosecutors that will let them avoid jail time if they cooperate as state witnesses.

Legal experts say two of the eight acts detailed in the DOJ indictment could be significantly impacted by the Supreme Court’s decision.

Kreis also said it’s likely that several of Trump’s interactions listed in the Fulton indictment, including a post-election phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, will be considered outside the scope of presidential authority.

“The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity makes state prosecutions of presidents for unlawful acts to subvert a presidential election even more important now because the evidence from state prosecutions will be focused on extra-federal executive conduct,” Kreis wrote on X Monday.

The way in which the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling is applied in the Justice Department’s Washington D.C. election interference case could serve as a template for the Fulton County case, according to legal experts.

Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee will have to determine whether Trump’s interactions with federal and state officials are protected from criminal prosecution as official presidential duties.

In both the DOJ and Fulton cases, Trump is accused of illegally pressuring Raffensperger in January 2021 to overturn Georgia’s election results and of obstructing the certification of the election by arranging for a false slate of Republican electors to meet in December 2020 to vote for Trump.

Previous federal court rulings in Georgia can give some guidance as U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan holds hearings to determine how immunity will be applied in Trump’s DOJ case, according to CNN analyst Norm Eisen, who served as legal counsel in the first impeachment trial of Trump.

Last year, Atlanta-based federal Judge Steve Jones rejected requests from Fulton co-defendants, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who wanted their case moved to federal court under claims they were acting in their official roles as federal officers.

Jones ruled Clark and Meadows’ criminal charges weren’t related to their federal jobs, including Meadows’ role in setting up the infamous Trump recorded phone call with Georgia’s election chief several weeks after the 2020 election.

“The issues at play in the Georgia removal proceedings are strikingly similar to the ones Chutkan will be forced to consider with respect to Trump,” Eisen wrote Monday’s opinion column published by CNN. “The Supreme Court has explicitly directed Chutkan to determine whether Trump’s interactions with state officials and private parties were official and left open the door for her to hold hearings over allegations that involved Pence, too.”

”Chutkan can give both parties the opportunity to develop facts supporting their competing positions and then make her ruling on immunity, ensuring that Trump continues to receive due process throughout,” Eisen said.

The Fulton case is on hold while the Georgia Court of Appeals reviews McAfee’s decision to reject defense attorneys’ arguments that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be removed from the case because her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade constituted prosecutorial misconduct. Willis hired Wade to lead the probe in November 2021 and she contends the relationship started after they started working on the case.

In August, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Trump and 18 others for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 Georgia presidential election results. President Joe Biden’s win was confirmed by multiple recounts and audits, and all court challenges were unsuccessful.

This story comes to GPB through a reporting partnership with Georgia Recorder.