The President of the United States has immunity from prosecution for official acts in office the Supreme Court ruled in a monumental decision with massive implications for presidential powers and the criminal cases against Donald Trump.
The case centered around Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for allegedly masterminding efforts to overthrow the 2020 election while in office, including on January 6.
The ex-president’s team argued that Trump, and any president, must have absolute immunity from prosecution over actions taken while in office or it could impair important decision-making.
The 6-3 decision split along the court’s ideological lines ensures that Trump will not face another blockbuster trial before the November election as the case is sent back to lower court to determine what is considered his ‘official’ versus ‘unofficial’ acts.
‘The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,’ the justices led by Chief Justice John Roberts write in the majority.
Donald Trump is the first former president to be convicted of a crime. He is facing charges in three other criminal cases including one involving efforts to overturn the 2020 interference in Washington, DC
‘But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.’
Trump celebrated the decision, writing on Truth Social: ‘BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!’
The Supreme Court’s historic ruling could also impact the two other ongoing criminal prosecutions against Trump – for his alleged mishandling of classified documents and for election subversion efforts in Georgia.
The majority opinion by Roberts continues: ‘At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
Read More
Key takeaways from blockbuster Supreme Court immunity arguments as liberal justices fret over Trump becoming a KING
The Supreme Court currently has a conservative six-three majority with three of the conservative justices nominated by Trump during his time in office.
The Biden campaign reacted to the Supreme Court decision on immunity with a statement from a senior campaign adviser.
‘Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.’
Lawyers representing special counsel had argued that a president can face charges for committing crimes while in office and no public official has absolute immunity.
The decision comes as Trump is facing criminal charges in three criminal cases and has already been found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York last month.
He is the first former president to ever be convicted of a crime.
During oral arguments where some wild hypotheticals were addressed, the justices appeared to reject granting presidents absolute immunity, but their line of questioning suggested they could delay Trump’s trial as he runs for president for a third time.
Liberal justices fretted that ruling presidents have full immunity would be no different than creating a king who could have power to stage a military coup or assassinate political opponents.
Conservative justices signaled they wanted to provide at least some legal safeguards to protect Trump and future presidents from political prosecution.
Arguing on behalf of special counsel, Michael Dreeben claimed there are some presidential acts that could not be criminalized dealing with ‘core’ constitutional powers specifically outlined in Article II such as the power to pardon, make appointments, recognize foreign nations, and veto legislation.
Trump is accused of efforts to overthrow the 2020 election including the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021
Conservative justices appeared to signal the fraud conspiracy statute used to charge Trump in the January 6 election interference case is overly broad.
The Supreme Court case stems from Smith’s election interference case against Trump brought in Washington, DC.
Trump is accused of efforts to overthrow the 2020 election including the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
He is facing four counts including conspiracy to defraud the United Sates, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of or attempting to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
It is arguably the most serious of the four cases against the ex-president.
Special Counsel Jack Smith brought charges against former President Trump for the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and efforts to overturn the 2020 election
District Judge Tanya Chutkan overseeing the case and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had both ruled Trump is not immune from prosecution.
While the lower courts awaited the Supreme Court decision, Chutkan previously assured Trump that he would have two months of pretrial preparation before any trial moves forward.
The current United States Supreme Court has a conservative six-three majority
It suggests the earliest the case could take place is in September, right as the 2024 campaign season kicks into high gear.
Trump also faces criminal cases in Florida over classified documents and in Georgia for election interference.