Supreme Court rules presidents partially immune from impeachment, but sends Trump case back to lower courts

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending a delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump over allegations that he conspired to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and almost the overall prospects of the former, the president’s trial could be tried before the November elections.

In a historic 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority, including three Trump-appointed justices, narrowed the scope of the case against him and returned it to the trial court to determine what remained of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment.

The court’s ruling in Trump’s second major case this term, along with a ruling rejecting attempts to disqualify him from the vote because of his actions after the 2020 election, underscores the role judges are playing in the November election. Last week, the court also reduced the obstruction charge brought against Trump and used against hundreds of his supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential authority entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within his ultimate and exclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

Roberts insisted that the president “is not above the law.” But in a sharp dissent from three of the court’s liberals, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “In every exercise of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Reading her opinion in the courtroom, Sotomayor said, “Because our Constitution does not protect a former president from liability for criminal and treasonous conduct, I disagree.” Sotomayor said the decision “makes a mockery of the principle underlying our Constitution and system of government that no one is above the law.”

The court’s protection for presidents “is as bad as it sounds and baseless,” she said.

Trump posted in all caps on his social media shortly after announcing the decision: “A GREAT VICTORY FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

Smith’s office declined to comment on the ruling.

A statement from President Joe Biden’s campaign said the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling “does not change the facts” about the events of Jan. 6.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the ruling as a “disgraceful decision” made with the help of three Trump-appointed judges.

“This undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court and shows that our courts are now governed primarily by political influence,” the New York Democrat said on the X show.

The justices left out one aspect of the indictment. The opinion said Trump was “completely immune” from prosecution for alleged conduct that included conversations with the Justice Department.

Trump is also “at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the electoral vote on January 6, 2021. Prosecutors may try to prove that Trump’s pressure on Pence’ and could still be part of the case against him, Roberts wrote.

The court ordered a factual review of one of the more striking allegations in the indictment — that Trump participated in a conspiracy to recruit fake electors in key swing states won by Biden who would falsely claim Trump had won. The two sides had sharply different interpretations of whether the effort could be considered official, and the conservative justices said determining which side was right would require additional analysis at the trial court level.

Roberts’ opinion further restricted prosecutors by prohibiting them from using any official action as evidence to prove that the president’s unofficial actions violated the law. One example that was irrelevant to this case but appeared in the discussions was the hypothetical payment of a bribe in exchange for an ambassadorial nomination.

According to Monday’s decision, the former president could be held criminally liable for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act in his case, i.e. the nomination.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the rest of Roberts’ opinion, dissented on that point. “The Constitution does not require courts to be blinded to the circumstances of conduct for which the President may be held accountable,” Barrett wrote.

It will fall to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will preside over Trump’s trial, to determine how to proceed.

Trump could still face trial, said Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller. “But the fact remains that it’s nearly impossible for that to happen before the election.”

David Becker, an election law expert and executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, called the scope of the immunity granted to Trump “extraordinarily broad” and “deeply disturbing.”

“Almost anything the president does with executive power is defined as an official act,” he said in a call with reporters after the ruling. He said that “for any unscrupulous person sitting in the Oval Office who may lose an election, from what I’m reading, this could be a blueprint for them to stay in power.”

The ruling was the last of this term and came more than two months after the court heard arguments, far slower than other epic Supreme Court cases involving the president, including the Watergate tapes.

The former president of the Republican Party denies any irregularities. He said this accusation and three others were politically motivated and intended to prevent him from returning to the White House.

In May, Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a crime in a New York court. He was found guilty of falsifying business records to cover up a secret payment of money during the 2016 presidential election to a porn actress who claims she had sex with him, which he denies. He still faces three other charges.

Smith heads two federal investigations into the former president that resulted in criminal charges. The Washington case focuses on Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election after his loss to Biden. The Florida case involves the mishandling of secret documents. A separate case in Georgia also concerns Trump’s actions after his defeat in 2020.

If Trump’s trial in Washington does not take place before the 2024 elections and he is not granted another four years in the White House, it is reasonable to assume that he will face trial shortly thereafter.

But if he wins, he could appoint an attorney general to seek the dismissal of that case and other federal charges he faces. He could also try to pardon himself if he regains the White House. He could not forgive himself for his conviction in New York state court.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion in which he said Smith’s appointment as special counsel was illegal. No other justices signed onto that opinion, but the issue has taken center stage in recent arguments in a Florida case involving classified documents.

The Supreme Court panel that heard the case included three Trump-appointed justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett — as well as two justices who did not recuse themselves after questions about their impartiality arose.

Thomas’ wife, Ginni, attended a rally near the White House where Trump spoke on Jan. 6, 2021, though she did not go to the Capitol when a pro-Trump mob attacked it shortly afterward. After the 2020 election, she called the result a “raid” and exchanged messages with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, urging him to stand with Trump as he falsely claimed there was widespread voter fraud.

Justice Samuel Alito said there was no reason for him to recuse himself from the case following a report in The New York Times that flags similar to those flown by the Jan. 6 rioters flew over his homes in Virginia and on the New Jersey shore. His wife, Martha-Ann Alito, was responsible for displaying both the inverted American flag in January 2021 and the “Appeal to Heaven” banner in the summer of 2023, he said in letters to Democratic lawmakers responding to their recuse requests.

Trump’s trial was scheduled to begin March 4, but that happened before Trump asked the court to approve a delay and for a full hearing of the case by the nation’s highest court.

Before the Supreme Court got involved, a trial judge and a three-judge appellate panel unanimously ruled that Trump could be impeached for actions he took while in the White House and in the period leading up to Jan. 6.

“For purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the appeals court wrote in February. “However, any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him from this impeachment.”

In December, Chutkan rejected Trump’s request for immunity. In her ruling, Chutkan said the office of the president “does not grant a lifetime get-out-of-prison-free pass.”

___

Associated Press journalists Lindsay Whitehurst, Alanna Durkin Richer, Eric Tucker, Stephen Groves, Farnoush Amiri, Michelle Price and Ali Swenson contributed to this story.