Supreme Court rules Trump has some presidential immunity protecting him from criminal prosecution

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the former president Donald Trump is entitled to a degree of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in connection with the federal election interference case in which he is implicated.

In a long-awaited 6-3 decision in Trump vs. United StatesThe justices ruled that Trump does not have the broad presidential immunity he claims to have, but does have protection from official acts. The court said Trump does not have immunity from unofficial or private acts done in the course of office. The biggest question now to be answered is what exactly constitutes official and unofficial acts. To that end, the justices sent the case back to lower courts for a decision.

Trump praised the Supreme Court decision on his Truth Social platform, writing in capital letters: “A great victory for our Constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!”

President Biden sharply criticized the ruling in an evening speech at the White House.

“As a practical matter, today’s decision almost certainly means there are virtually no limits to what the president can do,” Biden said, adding that it sets a “dangerous precedent.”

Biden said that if Trump is re-elected in November, he will be “more emboldened to do whatever he wants.”

Read the Supreme Court ruling here:

What the judges said

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and the other five conservative justices concurred. The liberal justices Sonia SotomayorElena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed a dissenting opinion.

“A president has no immunity for his unofficial actions, and not everything a president does is official,” Roberts wrote. “A president is not above the law. However, under our system of separated powers, a president cannot be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers and is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official actions.”

Roberts also wrote that the trial court will have to determine what aspects of Trump’s alleged conduct, of which he is accused in the case challenging the effectiveness of federal election operations, are protected from prosecution.

“We therefore remand the case to the District Court to first determine — in the absence of information — whether Trump’s conduct in this matter qualifies as official or unofficial,” Roberts wrote.

The chief justice made clear that lower courts cannot consider Trump’s motives in determining the difference between official and unofficial actions while in office.

“Such an investigation would risk subjecting even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial review on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby violating the very interests Article II immunity seeks to protect,” Roberts wrote.

Furthermore, if a lower court finds it is an official act done while Trump was in office, it cannot be used as evidence against the former president at trial.

“Presidents cannot be impeached based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully consider the remaining counts of the indictment to determine whether they also allege conduct for which the president must be immune from prosecution,” Roberts wrote.

The backlash claimed the president was now a “king above the law”

Sotomayor issued a withering dissent that raised concerns about the president’s abuse of power. “Ordering Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Untouchable. Organizing a military coup to maintain power? Untouchable. Accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Untouchable. Untouchable, untouchable, untouchable,” Sotomayor wrote.

“Let the president break the law, let him use the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil purposes. Because if he knew that one day he might be held accountable for breaking the law, he might not be as brave and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the message of the majority today.”

Sotomayor added: “The relationship between the president and the people he serves has changed irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”

What does the ruling mean

Overall, this is a strategic victory for Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal case against Trump will be delayed as the case has been sent back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. She must apply these new immunity definitions to assess whether Trump’s trial can proceed in Washington, D.C.

This would likely delay the trial until after the 2024 election. If Trump wins the election, he as president could either pardon himself in the federal case or appoint an attorney general to drop the case against him.

Reactions to the decision

A senior Biden campaign official issued a statement in response to the Supreme Court ruling, saying in part: “Today’s ruling does not change the facts, so let’s be honest about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump lost his temper after losing the 2020 election and incited a mob to overturn the results of a free and fair election.”

Trump’s staunch allies — and his vice presidential nominees — celebrated Monday’s decision and hailed it as a victory for the former president.

Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York called it “historic victory” while Senator JD Vance of Ohio called it a “huge victory” for Trump in a social media post.

How we got here

Trump has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether he can claim presidential immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s federal election tampering case for his alleged role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Smith’s August 2023 indictment of Trump covers both the former president’s official and private actions.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to four felony charges and has sought to have the charges dismissed. He has argued that he is immune from criminal prosecution because his actions were within the scope of his official activities as president, not private ones.

Smith, meanwhile, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss Trump’s claims of broad presidential immunity. The special counsel argued that Trump’s alleged actions on Jan. 6 were fair game for criminal prosecution because they were undertaken for personal gain as a candidate for his presidential campaign, not as a president acting on behalf of the country. “The effective functioning of the office of the presidency does not require that a former president be immune from liability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law,” Smith wrote in a letter to the Supreme Court.

Smith asked the court not to allow the former president to delay his trial until after the November election.