Supreme Court Says Trump has Some Immunity from Prosecution
In what seems like a major legal victory for the Republican White House candidate, the US Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump and other former presidents are partially immune from criminal prosecution.
The 6-3 ruling did not outright dismiss an indictment that charges Trump with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, but it did strip away key elements of the case against him.
The justices ruled that a president has immunity for "official acts" but not for "unofficial acts," and sent the case back to a trial judge. The three liberal justices dissented strongly, expressing concerns for democracy. "The President is now a king above the law," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
This decision decreases the likelihood that the Republican candidate will face trial before challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the November election. It marks the first time since the nation's founding that the Supreme Court has stated former presidents can be protected from criminal charges.
Trump is the first president to be criminally prosecuted, as noted by Chief Justice John Roberts in his opinion delivered on Monday.
"Big win for our constitution and democracy," wrote Trump in an all-capital letters post on his social media platform Truth Social.
In a fiery phone call with the media, deputy Biden campaign manager Quentin Fulks could be heard banging his fist on the table as he spoke.
"Immune, immune, immune. They just handed Donald Trump keys to a dictatorship," Mr Fulks said, pointing out that three of the justices had been appointed by Trump.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who filed the indictment, declined to comment. The majority opinion by the Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision that had rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity. The justices ruled that while a president has absolute immunity for official acts, they can still be prosecuted for private acts.
Justice Roberts wrote that a president's communications with the Department of Justice are official acts of the presidency, and therefore, the president is "absolutely immune" from prosecution for such interactions. The indictment alleges that Trump pressured the law enforcement agency to investigate unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud affecting the election results.
Justice Roberts wrote that a president's discussions with his vice-president are also official conduct, and Trump is therefore "at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Mike Pence not to certify Mr Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.
The indictment accuses Trump of inciting the US Capitol riot, citing his tweets and remarks he made outside the White House that day.
But the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Trump's speech and social media activity on 6 January 2021 were all official acts.
In another blow to the case, the justices ruled that Trump's private records - and those of his advisors - "may not be admitted as evidence at trial".
The opinion raised questions, too, about whether allegations that Trump pressured state officials to change their electoral votes in order to overturn his election defeat constituted unofficial acts, but ultimately left it to the lower court to decide.
"The parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct," said the opinion, raising doubts about the potential viability of the case once the official acts are stripped away.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued that the ruling would protect a president if they ordered U.S. special forces to assassinate a political rival, organized a military coup to stay in power, or accepted bribes in exchange for granting pardons. Justice Jackson, in a separate dissent, stated that the conservative majority's decision "breaks new and dangerous ground" and would "let down the guardrails of the law."
However, Justice Roberts wrote that the "tone of chilling doom" from the dissenters was "wholly disproportionate." His opinion asserted that immunity extends to the "outer perimeter" of the president's official responsibilities, raising the bar for prosecution.
Aziz Huq, a constitutional law expert at the University of Chicago, remarked that this ruling is "among the worst-case scenarios" for the special counsel. He suggested it will be crucial to see if Jack Smith can narrow the indictment by removing the facts deemed "official" by the Court.
Legal expert Mitchell Epner described the ruling as a major victory for Donald Trump. He noted that the trial judge must now decide which charges can proceed, and Trump will have the opportunity to appeal her ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.
