Supreme Court grants Trump immunity for official acts

(NewsNation) — The Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts but not unofficial ones.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court determined that presidents enjoy immunity from official acts while in office but that privilege does not extend to private conduct. The case has been sent back to the trial court with instructions for Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which actions in the indictment constitute official conduct and should be dropped from the case.

Immunity for official powers

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the decision, which strikes a balance between arguments that presidents have absolute immunity and arguments that not prosecuting criminal actions would lead to misconduct from presidents.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” Roberts wrote. “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead, whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.”

In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether Special Counsel Jack Smith is authorized to prosecute the case, calling into question the validity of the role.

“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution,” he wrote. “A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in part, disagreeing with the term immunity.

“The President can challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment, and he can obtain interlocutory review of the trial court’s ruling, ” she wrote.

She further said that prosecution would only be able to go forward if it did not intrude on the authority and functioning of the executive branch.

What Supreme Court justices dissented?

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency.  It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.  Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote.

Reshaping the presidency?

Sotomayor’s dissent noted that presidents could take advantage of the ruling to use the trappings of the office for personal gain.

“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today,” Sotomayor wrote.

In a departure from practice, she concluded her opinion without the phrase respectfully dissent, writing “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Impacts on the Jan. 6 case and 2024 election

While the ruling does not stop the case against Trump, it will further delay it as the lower court is tasked with determining if any of the actions in the indictment are considered part of the president’s official duties and must be immune from prosecution as well as ensuring that evidence supporting the indictments is not prohibited.

“Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial,” the Court ruled.

On Truth Social, the Trump campaign posted that they considered the ruling a win for the former president.

A senior Biden campaign advisor told NewsNation the ruling doesn’t change the facts.

“Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself,” they said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., called the ruling a victory for Trump and a defeat of the “weaponized” Department of Justice.

“The Court clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts. This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the Constitution and common sense,” he said.

The case may also impact the upcoming presidential election. Trump’s team has worked hard to delay cases until after the election, with Trump suggesting he could pardon himself on federal charges if elected.

Smith has repeatedly pushed the court for speed in an effort to get to trial before November, arguing the public should have accurate information when making a decision at the ballot box.

Special Counsel Jack Smith declined to comment on the ruling on Monday.

As of now, both the Georgia election case and the federal case regarding the improper retention of classified documents are stalled with legal arguments, and due to the length of Supreme Court deliberations, it’s unclear if there is any chance for the federal elections case to see a courtroom before the 2024 election.

The question of presidential immunity

The case raised the question of just how broad presidential immunity could stretch as Trump faces unprecedented criminal charges in two federal cases and one in Georgia while awaiting sentencing for financial crimes in New York.

The court was faced with considering the limits to presidential immunity as Trump’s team argued he should not be charged for his actions related to the results of the 2020 election. A federal appeals court previously found he did not have immunity when it comes to federal charges he conspired to overturn the election results.

Trump’s lawyers argued that presidents should have complete immunity for official acts. His lawyer argued that removing or limiting immunity would destroy the presidency and leave room for any outgoing president to be prosecuted by political opponents.

Attorneys representing the United States pushed back, noting the court has not recognized complete immunity for public officials in the past. Also in question is the distinction between public and private acts.

Justices pressed Trump’s lawyers on the distinction between official duties and private acts during oral arguments and appeared to be weighing the impact a ruling would have not just on Trump but on future presidents.

Read the full opinion here: