WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ended its term divided into partisan blocs, with the Republican appointees ruling in favor of former President Trump's claim of immunity while the three Democratic appointees voiced a bitter dissent.

It's exactly the result many critics of the court might have expected, with politics driving the law. It's also what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has tried hard to avoid—at least most of the time.

For much of this year, Roberts and the justices succeeded in defusing partisan splits with narrow or procedural rulings.

By a 9-0 vote, they threw out a Texas lawsuit seeking to block millions of American women from obtaining abortion pills. They denied gun rights to people who are under a domestic violence restraining order in a 8-1 decision.

But the chief justice did not seek to bridge the partisan divide in the case of Trump vs. United States. He passed up the chance for a narrow, consensus ruling offered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett that could have won over the court's liberals.

A former Notre Dame law professor,

Barrett saw no need for a broad ruling on presidential immunity in Trump's case.

"Properly conceived, the president's constitutional protection from prosecution is narrow," she wrote in a concurring opinion. "The Constitution does not insulate presidents from criminal liability for official acts."

Yes, the president cannot be prosecuted for the exercise of his "core" constitutional powers, she said, agreeing with the conservative majority on that point.

But she said the indictment before the court focused on Trump's effort overturn his election defeat by, for example, encouraging Republican state legislators to create false slates of electors claiming that Trump, not Biden, won in their state.

...continued

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.