The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
  • Investigations
  • Support the Maine Wire
  • Store
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Chinese Citizen Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Over 40 Elderly Victims Across Multiple States
  • Collins Says Senate DHS Vote Brings End of Shutdown Closer
  • Another Hoax Call Causes Lake Region High School Lockdown and Wastes Police Resources
  • Trump Administration to Investigate Maine’s Abortion Laws, Janet Mills Responds
  • The Pastor’s Office Ep.5 – ADDICTION (w/ Guest Paul Trovarello)
  • Bay State Feds Declare War On Public Program Fraud In Formation Of Anti-Fraud Team
  • Glenburn Fugitive Arrested after Fleeing Prison Sentence Following Guilty Plea
  • Mills Campaign Unleashes Emotional Ad Featuring Army Veteran Who Calls Platner ‘Unacceptable’ Over Past Reddit Comments
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Friday, March 27
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
  • Investigations
  • Support the Maine Wire
  • Store
The Maine Wire
Home » News » Top News » Maine’s Congressional Delegation Splits Over SCOTUS Presidential Immunity Ruling
Top News

Maine’s Congressional Delegation Splits Over SCOTUS Presidential Immunity Ruling

Libby PalanzaBy Libby PalanzaJuly 6, 2024Updated:July 6, 20245 Comments5 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

All four members of Maine’s delegation to Washington, D.C. have issued statements regarding the recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, revealing a stark divide among the state’s elected officials.

While Sen. Angus King (I) and Rep. Chellie Pingree (D) have spoken out sharply against the ruling, Sen. Susan Collins (R) and Rep. Jared Golden (D) have held back on criticizing the decision.

In their opinion released Monday, the Justices declared that former presidents enjoy immunity for any exercise of their “core constitutional powers,” as well as presumptive immunity for any remaining official actions.

The Justices also stated, however, that presidents do not enjoy immunity for “unofficial acts.”

With respect to the allegations leveraged against former President Donald Trump (R) specifically, the Court directly declared some of his acts to be immune while remanding the majority of allegations back to the lower courts for further consideration.

[RELATED: SCOTUS Declares Former Presidents Have Broad Immunity from Criminal Prosecution, Sides Largely with Donald Trump]

Rep. Pingree posted a lengthy statement to X in which she explained her strong opposition to the Court’s decision, accusing the Justices of “undermin[ing] the foundation of our Constitution.”

“Public trust in the Supreme Court is already at a historic low, and this term has cemented the current Court’s place as one of the most partisan and extreme benches we’ve ever seen,” Pingree said.

Public trust in the Supreme Court is already at a historic low, and this term has cemented the current Court’s place as one of the most partisan and extreme benches we’ve ever seen.

🧵

— Congresswoman Chellie Pingree 🇺🇸 (@chelliepingree) July 1, 2024

“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,” she continued.

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

“As Justice Sotomayor lays out in her powerful dissenting opinion, this decision will have severe long-term consequences and upsets the principles that have existed since our nation’s founding,” she continued.

As Justice Sotomayor lays out in her powerful dissenting opinion, this decision will have severe long-term consequences and upsets the principles that have existed since our nation’s founding. pic.twitter.com/TUi9jG5jyz

— Congresswoman Chellie Pingree 🇺🇸 (@chelliepingree) July 1, 2024

“Mr. Trump’s desperate attempt to cling to power fueled a violent insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021,” said Pingree. “SCOTUS’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, Pingree concluded. “It’s a sad day for democracy.”

It’s a sad day for America.

It’s a sad day for democracy.

— Congresswoman Chellie Pingree 🇺🇸 (@chelliepingree) July 1, 2024

Similarly, Sen. King criticized the ruling for giving future leaders “unchecked” authority and putting presidents “above the law.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity is of serious concern and has potentially grave implications for unchecked presidential authority in the future,” King’s office said in a written statement, according to the Portland Press Herald.

“The idea of broad presidential authority 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,” they said.

“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,” King’s office continued.

“Senator King and his team are taking a close look at both the majority ruling and minority dissent and will be evaluating whether Congressional action may be necessary to protect the public and the rule of law,” they concluded.

Sen. Collins, on the other hand, took a more reserved approach to analyzing the Court’s decision, stating simply that the Justices differentiated between official and unofficial conduct and that it will now be up to the lower courts to engage in “further fact finding.”

“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 said in a statement, according to the Press Herald.

“The Court, therefore, is sending the case back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for further fact finding,” Collins asserted. “It is clear that this case and other criminal proceedings involving former President Trump will continue to play out in the months ahead.”

Rep. Golden was also less critical in his response to the ruling, noting a belief that there is a recognizable distinction between official and unofficial conduct and explaining that he wants to wait and see how the decision is applied by the lower courts before “rushing to judgement.”

“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 said in a statement, the Press Herald reported.

“The real question is how lower courts apply this new framework in cases that seek to hold former presidents accountable for alleged wrongdoing,” he said.

“We should see how this framework is applied before rushing to judgment over whether it is fundamentally flawed,” Golden concluded.

Previous ArticleCape Elizabeth Business Seeking New Ownership After Protracted Legal Battle with Town
Next Article $23 Million Grant to Replace Hancock County, Acadia Buses with EVs Awarded to Downeast Transportation
Libby Palanza

Libby Palanza is a reporter for the Maine Wire and a lifelong Mainer. She graduated from Harvard University with a degree in Government and History. She can be reached at [email protected].

Latest News

Collins Says Senate DHS Vote Brings End of Shutdown Closer

March 27, 2026

Bay State Feds Declare War On Public Program Fraud In Formation Of Anti-Fraud Team

March 27, 2026

Mills Campaign Unleashes Emotional Ad Featuring Army Veteran Who Calls Platner ‘Unacceptable’ Over Past Reddit Comments

March 27, 2026
0 0 votes
Article Rating
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jon
Jon
1 year ago

Every one of the 4 needs to be replaced! They are all useless steaming piles of human excrement!

3
Waldo Otto
Waldo Otto
1 year ago

The decision by the SCOTUS has followed a practice that has bee followed since the founding of the US. It was intelligent and constitutionally sound. It does not allow for the president to become king or dictator.

2
Chris
Chris
1 year ago

The picture of Angus says all you need to know about this dork.

1
Sandy Feet
Sandy Feet
1 year ago

Pingree, King, and Golden are insiders, key members of the Demotraic party They should have known about Bidden and told us the voters. They are liers or part of the cover up
Never for them or any Democrat, National, State, or local!!!

1
Sandy Feet
Sandy Feet
1 year ago

Pingee you have had a BIG HAND in the jailing of Maine Citizens over 1/6. You are a traider to the constitun. Please leave NOW

1
Recent News

Chinese Citizen Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Over 40 Elderly Victims Across Multiple States

March 27, 2026

Collins Says Senate DHS Vote Brings End of Shutdown Closer

March 27, 2026

Another Hoax Call Causes Lake Region High School Lockdown and Wastes Police Resources

March 27, 2026

Trump Administration to Investigate Maine’s Abortion Laws, Janet Mills Responds

March 27, 2026

Bay State Feds Declare War On Public Program Fraud In Formation Of Anti-Fraud Team

March 27, 2026
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

wpDiscuz