Supreme Court rules Trump has partial immunity from prosecution

“A great victory for our Constitution and democracy,” Trump wrote in a post posted in all caps on his social media platform Truth Social.

Biden’s deputy campaign manager, Quentin Fulks, could be heard banging his fist on the table during an emotional call with the media.

“Resilient, resilient, resilient. They just handed Donald Trump the keys to a dictatorship,” Mr. Fulks said, pointing out that three of the judges were appointed by Mr. Trump.

Special prosecutor Jack Smith, who prepared the indictment, declined to comment.

The majority opinion from the nation’s highest court rejected a lower court opinion that rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity.

The judges ruled that the president enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for official actions, but can still be prosecuted for private acts.

Justice Roberts wrote that the president’s conversations with the Justice Department are official acts of the president and that he or she is therefore “absolutely immune” from prosecution for such interactions.

The indictment accuses Trump of pressuring law enforcement to investigate allegations — which turned out to be unfounded — that widespread voter fraud affected the election outcome.

Justice Roberts wrote that the president’s discussions with his vice president are also official activities, and Mr Trump is therefore “at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Mike Pence not to recognise Mr Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

The indictment accuses Trump of inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol, citing his tweets and remarks he made outside the White House that day.

However, on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s speech and social media activity on Jan. 6, 2021, were official acts.

In a further blow to the case, the justices ruled that private documents from Trump — and his advisers — “should not be admitted as evidence at trial.”

The opinion also raised questions about whether accusations that Trump pressured state officials to change their electoral votes in order to reverse his election defeat constituted unofficial actions, but that issue was ultimately left to a lower court to decide.

“The parties and the District Court must ensure that the allegations contained in the indictment are sufficiently substantiated and that no such conduct is committed,” the opinion stated, raising doubts about the potential enforceability of the case after the official acts are rejected.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor argued that the ruling would protect the president if he ordered U.S. special forces to kill a political rival, staged a military coup to retain power or accepted bribes in exchange for granting a pardon.

Justice Jackson wrote in a separate dissenting opinion that the conservative majority ruling “opens new and dangerous paths” and “lowers the level of protection under the law.”

But Justice Roberts wrote that the “tone of horrified doom” from the dissenters was “wholly disproportionate.”

In his view, the immunity extends to the “outer scope” of the president’s official duties, which places higher demands on prosecution.

The ruling is “one of the worst-case scenarios” for the special counsel, said Aziz Huq, a constitutional law expert at the University of Chicago.

“I think it will be important to see whether (Jack) Smith can narrow the indictment by eliminating the facts that the Court has found to be ‘official’,” he told the BBC.

“This is a major victory for Donald Trump,” legal expert Mitchell Epner told the BBC.

He added that the judge presiding over the case will now have to decide which charges can be upheld, and Trump could appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court again.

Additional Information: Kayla Epstein