In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has granted former President Donald Trump, and any future president, a degree of immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions taken while in office. The decision, which came in a 6-3 vote, is one of the most significant in the history of the American presidency. The court rejected Trump’s broad claim of total immunity but acknowledged that some actions related to his official duties are protected.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.” The court’s conservative majority granted Trump “presumptive immunity” for actions he claims were within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties. This immunity is deemed necessary to ensure the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch.
However, the ruling also clarified that there is no immunity for unofficial acts. The judge overseeing Trump’s federal election interference case must now determine which of his actions were official. The case, which stems from Trump’s appeal in his federal election interference indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, accuses him of attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Trump faces charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
Trump’s legal team argued that he was acting within his official duties as president and should therefore be immune from prosecution. They cited the 1982 Supreme Court case Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which found that presidents cannot be sued in civil cases for actions conducted while in office. During oral arguments, Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, persuaded the justices that the prospect of charges, trial, and imprisonment could distort a president’s decision-making, especially when bold and fearless action is needed.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, however, argued that no president is above the law. He cited the landmark 1974 Supreme Court case Nixon v. United States, which decided that presidential privilege does not make the president immune from the judicial process. The last time the United States considered prosecuting a president was Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal, but Nixon was never criminally prosecuted.
The court’s decision will delay the federal trial against Trump, as a lower court will now have to determine which of his acts were made in an official capacity. This legal proceeding is likely to diminish the prospects of the trial starting before Election Day or even after the presidential inauguration in January 2025.
The ruling has sparked significant debate. The court’s liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, warning against the dangerous precedent for democracy. Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, “Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
The case will be sent back to the district court in Washington, DC, where Judge Tanya Chutkan will determine whether the actions listed in Trump’s indictment are “official” or “unofficial.” The court’s decision to issue the ruling on the final day of its current session ensures that voters will not see a verdict in the trial before they cast their ballots in the next election.
Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” However, the court’s decision to remand specific questions about Trump’s actions surrounding the election back to the District Court means that these decisions could likely be appealed back to the Supreme Court.
The ruling also severely limits prosecutors’ ability to introduce evidence or testimony related to a former president’s “official” conduct in a case prosecuting “unofficial” conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision to take up Trump’s immunity claims was surprising, given the arguments posed by his legal team before the D.C. appeals court. Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, argued that presidential immunity would even protect a president from prosecution if they attempted to order a hit on a political rival.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer during oral arguments if a president who ordered the military to assassinate a political rival would be immune from prosecution. Sauer responded that it would depend on the hypothetical, suggesting that such an act could be considered official. In her dissent, Sotomayor warned that the majority’s opinion would now protect this exact type of conduct.
Trump’s attorneys and close advisers had privately braced to lose the Supreme Court case but have been celebrating the court’s decision to take up the case. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court’s decision effectively bumps Trump’s federal criminal trials off the 2024 calendar, or at least past the November election. If Trump wins the election, the delays to his federal trials would give his second administration the ability to shut down the cases and pursue the prosecutors who dared to cross him.
Several of Trump’s top lawyers and aides predicted that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority would not endorse Trump’s absolute immunity arguments but would instead grant some forms of presidential immunity and remand the legal debate back to a lower court. A conservative lawyer close to the Trump family noted, “That would be insane if the [Supreme] Court agreed it was legal for a president to kill the other party’s leader. But they are likely to give the Trump side something to work with.”
Source: Various sources
