Tuesday Briefing: Supreme Court Gives Trump Significant Immunity

Supreme Court has granted Trump significant immunity

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Donald Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution, a major ruling on presidential power that could have long-term implications.

The crux of the ruling, which was decided by a 6-3 party-line vote, lies in the distinction between official and private conduct. Broad immunity for official conduct is needed, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, to protect “a vibrant, independent executive branch.”

The ruling will almost certainly delay Trump’s trial on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election until after the 2024 election. The case now returns to the lower court, which will decide whether Trump’s actions were in an official or private capacity. If Trump is re-elected, he could simply order the Justice Department to drop the charges.

The liberal justices who dissented warned that the ruling would expand a level of immunity that could undermine democracy, saying the decision made the president “a king above the law.”

France reels after far-right victory

For many, France felt like a different place yesterday after the first round of snap elections. The far-right Rassemblement National party, led by Marine Le Pen, won a record number of votes and President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist Renaissance party seemed on the verge of collapse. Here are five takeaways.

A frenetic campaign has begun for the second round of Sunday’s elections. Only 76 of the 577 seats in the National Assembly were won outright, and there will be a battle for the remaining seats this week.

The big question is whether the Rassemblement National will win enough seats in the second round to win an absolute majority. If that happens, Macron will be forced to appoint a political opponent as prime minister, changing domestic politics and clouding foreign policy.

If that doesn’t happen, the National Assembly will likely be ungovernable, with Macron’s party and its allies caught between right and left, my colleague Roger Cohen writes in an analysis. France would likely face months of political gridlock or unrest.

Biden’s campaign tries to reassure donors

President Biden’s top campaign manager was expected to hold a crucial conference call with donors to convince them that the President can still beat Donald Trump in November.

The rush to talk to donors was the campaign’s most formal attempt yet to quell panic after Biden’s shaky, disjointed performance in Thursday’s debate. Keeping his donor base will be crucial to the president’s argument for staying in the race, even as his team braces for poll results this week that could reveal whether the debate has dented his support.

Only a few decades ago, many researchers considered pets to be very unserious subjects of study. Today, companion animals are scientifically fashionable.

Experts around the world are peering deep into the bodies and minds of cats and dogs. The research, sometimes based on data from tens of thousands of pet owners, promises to inform human medicine as well.

Lives lived: Ismail Kadare, an Albanian novelist and poet who indirectly criticized his country’s totalitarian government in dark, allegorical works, has died at the age of 88. Here is a guide to his books.

CONVERSATION STARTERS

A culture war over Britain’s stately homes

Dozens of properties owned by the National Trust, which manages many of Britain’s best-loved historic houses, have deep links to colonial exploitation and slavery.

But when the organisation highlighted these links in displays at dozens of its properties, it sparked a conservative backlash. Right-wing columnists and academics accused the trust of being “woke” and “anti-British”, and launched a campaign to reverse some of the changes. The battle played out over three years on social media and in Britain’s right-wing newspapers.

Hilary McGrady, the fund’s chief executive, said she could understand how the changes could be “nerve-wracking”. But what she could not understand were claims that the fund was “waging a mad campaign to undermine history”.