Supreme Court grants Trump immunity for ‘official’ activities in landmark ruling that will delay trial

Former presidents enjoy some immunity from criminal prosecution for their official actions, the Supreme Court ruled Monday — extending a delay in criminal proceedings against Donald Trump over allegations he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending any chance he will be tried before the November election.

In a 6-3 ruling Monday, the court rejected Trump’s suggestion of blanket immunity but said some of the actions described in the federal election interference indictment related to his official actions and were protected.

“A president has no immunity for his unofficial actions, and not everything a president does is official. A president is not above the law. But Congress cannot criminalize a president’s conduct in the discharge of his executive duties under the Constitution,” wrote Justice John Roberts for the majority.

The court’s conservative majority granted him “presumptive immunity” for actions the former president said were “within the scope” of his official duties.

“Such immunity is necessary to protect the independence and effective functioning of the executive branch and to enable the president to perform his constitutional duties without undue caution,” the judges wrote.

However, he has “no immunity” from “unofficial activities,” which the judge overseeing his federal election interference case must now decide, according to the ruling.

Trump’s alleged pressure campaign against Mike Pence and state officials to change the election results, as well as other activities described in the indictment against him, “raise more difficult questions” about immunity from prosecution, the judges said.

The ruling, the latest decision on the final day of the Supreme Court’s term, will delay a federal trial against the former president because a lower court will now have to determine which of Trump’s actions were taken in his official capacity. That likely prolonged legal action will reduce the chances of a trial starting before Election Day or even the presidential inauguration in January 2025.

The case follows Trump’s appeal filed last year by special counsel Jack Smith of an indictment alleging interference in federal elections.

Federal prosecutors have accused him of waging a campaign of lies to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which culminated in a violent mob breaching the Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy to violate rights.

However, Trump’s lawyers have appealed the indictment, arguing that the former president was acting within his official presidential duties and should therefore be protected from criminal punishment.

Trump has claimed absolute immunity, relying largely on a 1982 Supreme Court ruling. Nixon vs. Fitzgeraldin which the court found that presidents cannot be sued in civil cases for actions they did while in office.

During oral arguments in April, Trump lawyer John Sauer told the justices that the prospect of impeachment, trial and imprisonment could “distort the president’s decision-making at precisely the time when bold and courageous action is needed most.”

Sauer said that without safeguards the president cannot effectively carry out his duties.

Smith argued otherwise, believing that neither Trump nor any other president is above the law.

In his letter to the court, Smith cited a precedent-setting 1974 Supreme Court decision. Nixon vs. United Stateswhich held that presidential privilege does not provide the president with protection from legal proceedings.

The last time the United States considered prosecuting a president was Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal. Although the courts considered whether a president must participate in a trial, Nixon was never charged in a criminal proceeding.

Most conservative male judges seemed ready to grant Trump Some immunity from criminal charges. Almost all of them raised the issue of unfair accusations against the president by political opponents.

But the court’s liberal wing, joined by conservative Justice Barrett, expressed concerns that future presidents “will be emboldened to commit crimes” while in office, knowing they are protected from prosecution.

In Monday’s ruling, liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning of the conservative court’s dangerous precedent for democracy.

“Today’s decision to grant former presidents immunity from prosecution transforms the institution of the presidency,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. “It makes a mockery of the principle, fundamental to our Constitution and system of government, that no one is above the law.”

She said the majority’s decision was based “on nothing more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and fearless action’ on the part of the president.”

“Fearing for our democracy, I object,” she wrote.

The case will be sent back to the U.S. District Court in Washington, where Judge Tanya Chutkan will be tasked with determining whether the actions listed in Trump’s indictment are “official” or “unofficial.”

The court’s decision to wait until the last day of the current session to issue a ruling ensures that voters will not learn the verdict in a trial seeking to determine whether Trump illegally conspired to overturn the election before they vote in the next election in November.

Trump vs. United States asked whether a president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office while in “official capacity.” This is the second case Trump has brought to the Supreme Court this term.