US Supreme Court's "Congressional Authority on Tariffs" Rules on Separation of Powers, Lee Jae-myung's "Immunity" Altered

 

The US Supreme Court's "Congressional Authority on Tariffs" Rules on Separation of Powers, Lee Jae-myung's "Immunity" Altered

 

The US Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, last year upheld presidential immunity, defending the Trump administration. In its recent "tariff nullification" ruling, the Supreme Court recognized "congressional authority" and declared independence, confirming the separation of powers. The Lee Jae-myung administration has altered the Constitution's separation of powers into "presidential immunity."

 

The Trump administration, which revived the conservative doctrine of "taxes are a congressional authority and tariffs are taxes," has refused to recognize the Trump administration's "intrusion into the tariff domain."

 

The US Supreme Court's "presidential immunity" has been codified as "separation of powers based on the limitation of official duties." The Lee Jae-myung administration's "presidential criminal prosecution privilege" has been misconstrued as "presidential immunity," which violates the constitutional guarantee of separation of powers by granting a stay of proceedings in the case of the "criminal prosecution of the former Seongnam mayor, not in his official duties" and in the case of election law violations.

 

The Lee Jae-myung administration, led by Manchurian lawmakers in the legislative branch, stipulated that "prosecution includes a stay of trial." The Supreme Court, in the judicial branch, postponed this to the "judgment of the presiding judge," which then suspended it with an "indefinite postponement." The ruling sentencing Yoon Seok-yeol to life imprisonment separated the "indictment" and "maintenance of prosecution" from the "non-indictment of the president," stating that it only applies to the indictment.

The US Supreme Court has defended executive orders based on "presidential immunity under the separation of powers," and in its tariff ruling, it ruled that "taxes are a congressional authority under the separation of powers, and tariffs are taxes."

The Lee Jae-myung administration has, in the most crucial dispute between the executive branch and the judiciary, compromised the independent judgment of the judiciary and colluded with the executive branch. The legislature has avoided independent judgment and voluntarily relinquished its right to the separation of powers.

The Korean Constitution, in Chapter 2, People, Chapter 3, National Assembly, Chapter 4, Government, and Section 1, President, states that “Article 82: The President shall not be charged with a criminal offense during his tenure of office except for insurrection or treason,” and places the people at the highest level, dividing the government into three branches of government with the President below them.

 

The Chief Justice, appointed by Trump's conservative Republican administration, has abruptly and shockingly changed the situation by firmly rejecting President Trump's signature tariff program on behalf of six other justices.

 

The New York Times reported, "This was the Supreme Court's first substantive ruling on an element of the administration's second-term agenda—a final ruling on the legality of executive action—and effectively a declaration of independence." The case was also one of a series of clashes between the leaders of two very different branches of the federal government: a disciplined and intellectual Chief Justice and a sharp and bold President."

 

Reuters reported on the 21st, under the headline "Tariff Ruling Reaffirms Supreme Court's Power to Check Trump," that "After a year of siding with President Trump, consolidating its power and enabling rapid changes in U.S. policies on immigration, military service, and federal employment, the Supreme Court has finally reached its limit." The ruling, written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, did not circumvent its scope or effect, did not postpone questions about the legality of the tariffs to the next day, and decisively invalidated them without addressing the consequences for rebates, trade agreements, or the Republican president himself."

​

Last February, a US federal grand jury, led by conservatives, granted former President Trump immunity in four indictments related to his actions during his presidency in the November 2020 election overturn. The Trump administration, led by staunch conservatives, enforced a tough tariff policy.

​

According to the indictment, after losing the presidential election, Trump conspired to overturn the results by intentionally spreading false claims of election fraud in order to obstruct the collection, counting, and certification of the election results. Trump then petitioned the Supreme Court to dismiss the indictment, citing presidential immunity.

​

Trump's defense, asserting presidential immunity, argued that the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts performed within the scope of his official duties, and that the charges against him fall within the core scope of his official duties.

​

The district court denied Trump's motion to dismiss, ruling that the former president does not have federal criminal immunity for any acts.

​

The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the indictment, and Trump appealed to the Supreme Court.

​

However, both the district court and the appellate court reserved judgment on whether the indicted acts constituted official conduct.

​

The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ultimately ruled that "under our constitutional structure based on the separation of powers, the very nature of presidential authority grants a former president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts performed within the definitive and exclusive scope of his constitutional authority." Furthermore, "He has at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts. He has no immunity for acts not in official capacity."

​

The inclusion of the Chief Justice among the six Republican appointees created a fundamentally conservative Supreme Court. The three Trump appointees were not particularly sympathetic to Trump's arguments. In the tariff case, two Trump appointees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, joined Chief Justice Roberts in voting to invalidate the tariffs.

​

As attacks on court rulings increased under Trump's increasingly conservative establishment, Chief Justice Roberts declared, "Attempts to intimidate judges are inappropriate and should be strongly opposed." He added, "Public officials clearly have the right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they must be mindful that their excessive comments about judges can provoke dangerous reactions in others."

​

Following the Supreme Court's ruling that "tariffs are a congressional power," President Trump held a hastily convened press conference on the 20th, criticizing the justices, stating that they had exceeded their authority by imposing tariffs on nearly all of America's trading partners, and calling them "idiots and lapdogs."

​

Reading from prepared remarks, President Trump harshly criticized some of the justices, known as conservatives and those appointed by Trump, calling them unfaithful to the Constitution and "unpatriotic." The 6-2 ruling invalidating the tariffs against the Trump administration was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a Republican appointed by former President Bush.

​

The Supreme Court's ruling last February, which upheld Trump's immunity, stated that "the very nature of the immunity mandate requires that former presidents enjoy a degree of immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office." It also acknowledged Trump's claim, stating that "this immunity must be absolute for the President's exercise of core constitutional powers. He is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts."

​

The Supreme Court ruled that "no act of Congress—whether specifically directed at the President or of general application—can criminalize acts within the exclusive scope of the President's constitutional authority," that "the courts cannot hear criminal proceedings reviewing such presidential acts," and that "therefore, the courts conclude that the President enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the exclusive scope of his constitutional authority." The ruling upheld "presidential criminal immunity" based on the separation of powers.

​

The Supreme Court ruled that "Article II of the Constitution grants the "President of the United States" "executive power." Article I, Section 1. The Supreme Court ruled that the President has duties of “unparalleled gravity and breadth.” <The President’s authority to act necessarily derives from “acts of Congress or the Constitution itself.” <In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “decisive and exclusive.”> <When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on the President’s actions, nor can the courts review the President’s actions.>

​

The Supreme Court concluded that <Therefore, no act of Congress—whether specifically directed at the President or of general application—can criminalize an act within the scope of the President’s exclusive constitutional authority.> <Nor can the courts hear criminal proceedings reviewing such presidential acts.> <The Court therefore concludes that the President enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority.>

​

At the National Assembly, approximately 80 Democratic Party lawmakers launched the "Assembly for the Withdrawal of the Indictment against President Lee Jae-myung and the Promotion of a State Affairs Investigation," and Representative Park Sung-joon, standing representative, announced that the group surpassed 100 members on the 20th.

The Democratic Party's "withdrawal of the indictment against the President" constitutes a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers.

The Constitution stipulates the separation of powers in Chapter 3, Governing Body: Section 1: Legislative power, National Assembly; Section 2: Executive power, Government; Section 3: Judicial power, Courts.

​

The U.S. Supreme Court decision is <SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus TRUMP v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 23–939. Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024>.

 

See <Trump Lee Jae-myung: 'Only I Can Do It' Cult Follower Personality Cult Dictatorship, February 16, 2026>