Former U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Joe diGenova and former DOJ deputy assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing told Newsmax on Monday that Democrat lawmakers who are blasting the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling should hold their criticism because they enjoy similar protections as members of Congress.
"I just have one question for those Democratic members of Congress: How's that speech or debate clause, absolute immunity, working out for you?" Toensing asked during an appearance on "American Agenda." "Have you said you don't want that anymore? They have absolute immunity from whatever they do in the halls of Congress. So, it's very similar."
The Constitution's speech or debate clause shields congressional lawmakers from prosecution for things they say in the course of their legislative activities.
In a 6-3 ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court found that former presidents have some degree of immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. The outcome extended the delay in the Washington criminal case against former President Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss.
Capitol Hill Democrats raged against the decision, with Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., calling it the "most dangerous judicial opinion from our Supreme Court in generations."
Toensing said that she and diGenova "predicted this opinion, that there would be a test and it would be sent back."
"I'll tell you, today the most unhappy person, besides [special counsel] Jack Smith, is Judge [Tanya] Chutkan, because she has got a lot of work to do," she added.
Echoing Toensing, diGenova said that the Supreme Court was sending the 2020 election interference case against Trump back down to the lower courts for the judges to decide; not a jury.
"There's been some comment today that this was being sent back down for a jury to decide whether or not these were unofficial acts," diGenova said. "That's nonsensical. The Supreme Court itself said today that this was being sent back down to the judges – the Court of Appeals and the district judge – to decide what was official, what wasn't. They made it very clear that you could never give anything like this to a jury to decide, because a jury might be influenced by the political nature of the president in power, and it would be biased. So, bottom line is this is a judicial question from start to finish. It's not for any jury to decide."
"By the way, this is an embarrassing day for both Judge Chutkan and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, because what the Supreme Court said today, by virtue of its language, was that the ruling of Judge Chutkan and the D.C. Circuit, those two rulings, were sophomoric," he continued. "They were unintelligent. They were not sophisticated analysis by the lower courts. The Supreme Court really slammed them down tremendously. And the bottom line is Judge Chutkan is going to have to be very, very careful. She's going to take her time and there will be no trial of this case before the election."
About NEWSMAX TV:
NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!
- Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
- Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE -- See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com
Nicole Weatherholtz ✉
Nicole Weatherholtz, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.