Pingree, King critique SCOTUS immunity decision, while Golden, Collins withhold judgment

U.S. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) walks in the U.S. Capitol during a vote on July 21, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Some members of Maine’s congressional delegation are raising alarm of serious consequences to come from Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision granting the presumption of immunity from criminal charges for some official actions taken by presidents , calling the ruling an undermining of the country’s founding principles.

However, Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine told Maine Morning Star he thinks judgment on whether the decision is flawed should be withheld until seeing how lower courts apply the framework.

The landmark 6-3 decision by the court’s conservatives found that while U.S. presidents do not have immunity from criminal charges for unofficial acts, they do enjoy full immunity from criminal charges for their official “core constitutional” acts.

Two of the four members of Maine’s congressional delegation — Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree and independent Sen. Angus King — have criticized the high court’s decision. King is also considering taking Congressional action, which his spokesperson said “ may be necessary to protect the public and the rule of law .”

Pingree, King and other critics fear the implications the decision will have for former President Donald Trump, whose requests for protection from federal criminal charges alleging he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential results prompted the decision .

A federal indictment in August 2023 alleged Trump knowingly plotted with co-conspirators to overturn election results, working his base into a frenzy that culminated in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress was to certify electoral votes.

While the timing of the Supreme Court’s decision makes the possibility of Trump’s election subversion case heading to trial before Election Day unlikely , the trial court now must decide whether Trump’s alleged conspiring and falsehoods qualify as official presidential action.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins did not respond to a request for comment regarding the decision by the time of publication, however in a statement later provided to the Portland Press Herald , Collins struck a similar tone to Golden, abstaining from passing judgment about the ruling.

‘The real question’

How the lower courts apply this new framework is the focus of Golden, who did not join Pingree and King in denouncing the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.

“It would seem to me that there is a meaningful difference between official acts undertaken as a president and unofficial acts taken while holding the office,” Golden wrote in a statement to Maine Morning Star. “The real question is how lower courts apply this new framework in cases that seek to hold former presidents accountable for alleged wrongdoing.”

Golden wrote that he did not want to rush to judge whether the decision is “fundamentally flawed” before seeing how the framework is applied.

Collins is also looking to how the lower court applies the new precedent.

“The Supreme Court decision distinguishes between official acts and unofficial acts, in which a president is acting in a personal capacity and is not immune from prosecution,” Collins wrote in a statement. “The court, therefore, is sending the case back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for further fact finding. It is clear that this case and other criminal proceedings involving former President Trump will continue to play out in the months ahead.”

‘The Court has undermined the foundation of our Constitution’

According to Pingree, Monday’s decision solidified the court as “one of the most partisan and extreme benches” the country has ever seen.

“This is the Supreme Court that overturned 50 years of precedent protecting reproductive rights, struck down affirmative action, and stripped significant rulemaking authority from federal agencies to further empower the Judicial Branch,” Pingree wrote in a statement to Maine Morning Star — the latter referring to a ruling issued Friday flipping precedent that for decades limited judicial power to strike executive branch regulations.

“Now, by expanding a President’s immunity from prosecution for so-called ‘official acts,’” Pingree went on, “the Court has undermined the foundation of our Constitution that no man is above the law.”

A spokesperson for King similarly shared in a statement on his behalf that the senator believes the decision is a violation of the country’s founding values.

“The idea of broad presidential immunity as outlined by the court violates a bedrock principle of American law and practice — that no one, not even the president, is above the law,” King’s spokesperson wrote.  “This ruling, which essentially removes the check of potential criminal liability on any future chief executive, is especially troubling given the enormous power of the modern presidency.”

Pingree and King’s concerns about the ruling echo those voiced by President Joe Biden on Monday night.

“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America,” Biden said. “Each of us is equal before the law. No one — no one — is above the law, not even the president of the United States.”

‘Congressional action may be necessary’

While Golden and Collins did not comment on potential implications, Pingree pointed to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion when explaining the consequences she expects will come of the decision.

“Mr. Trump’s desperate attempt to cling to power fueled a violent insurrection on January 6, 2021,” Pingree wrote. “The Supreme Court’s decision today not only opens the door to absolving this treasonous act but gives any future president seemingly unchecked freedom to commit crimes at will for political gain. It’s a sad day for America. It’s a sad day for democracy.”

Also concerned about implications for unchecked presidential authority in the future, King may try to intervene.

King’s spokesperson said the senator and his team are taking a close look at the majority ruling and minority dissent to determine whether “Congressional action may be necessary to protect the public and the rule of law.”

Editor’s Note: This story was updated on July 3 to include comment from U.S. Sen. Susan Collins.

The post Pingree, King critique SCOTUS immunity decision, while Golden, Collins withhold judgment appeared first on Maine Morning Star .