Don Zeko: Even if it were, the majority opinion is not telling other actors how to indict a former president while passing constitutional muster. It's saying that you probably can't indict a former president, but whether your attempt is good enough is up to them.

I appeared on Gray TV today to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling today in favor of Donald Trump on immunity and the likely impact of that decision on each of the four pending prosecutions of Former President Trump. www.graydc.com/2024/07/01/s...

Supreme Court immunity ruling set to delay Trump’s criminal trialswww.graydc.com The conservative justices’ opinion that Trump is at least partially immune for what he did in office upends the timeline for his four criminal cases.

What about a superseding indictment in DC, meticulously following the Barrett, J. footnote?

Justice Barrett's footnote is part of a dissent, not a majority opinion.

Even if it were, the majority opinion is not telling other actors how to indict a former president while passing constitutional muster. It's saying that you probably can't indict a former president, but whether your attempt is good enough is up to them.

Isn’t it fun when the SCt, no less, sets up barriers to prosecution for the defense?

Post