In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts conducted while in office. However, the ruling clarifies that this immunity does not extend to unofficial acts.
The decision to grant former President Donald Trump “partial immunity” has sparked rampant speculation about who benefits most from Monday's decision.
The New York Times reports that the decision raises the possibility of further delays to special counsel Jack Smith's Jan. 6 case:
Mr. Trump contended that he was entitled to absolute immunity from the charges, relying on a broad understanding of the separation of powers and a 1982 Supreme Court precedent that recognized such immunity in civil cases for actions taken by presidents within the “outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities. Lower courts rejected Mr. Trump's claim, but the Supreme Court's ruling may delay the case enough that Mr. Trump would be able to make it go away entirely if he prevails in November.
The ruling: The justices said that Mr. Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts taken during his presidency but that there was a crucial distinction between official and private conduct. The case returns to the lower court, which will decide whether the actions Mr. Trump took were in an official or private capacity.
The charges: The former president faces three charges of conspiracy and one count of obstructing an official proceeding, all related to his efforts to cling to the presidency after his 2020 loss. He was indicted last August by the special counsel, Jack Smith, in one of two federal criminal cases against him; the other relates to the F.B.I. raid on his private club, Mar-a-Lago, in August 2022 that recovered missing government documents.
Lower courts ruled against Trump: The trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington, denied Mr. Trump's immunity request in December. “Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free' pass,” she wrote.
In the days and weeks preceding Monday's decision, Trump took his case to the court of public opinion.
In a recent video posted to social media, the presidential front-runner declared: “Without presidential immunity, the president cannot function as his political opponents will blackmail and extort him with the threat of wrongful persecution at every turn, including when he leaves office.”
The case is the most high-profile of the court's session, and it was released on the final day before the Supreme Court justices go on summer recess. The case relates entirely to Trump's attempts to shield himself from a federal indictment for election interference.
Smith's indictment charged Trump with four felonies relating to his efforts to reverse President Biden's 2020 victory. Trump's legal team argues that the actions he took were all part of his official duties as president and that presidents cannot be prosecuted for such acts.
In nearly three hours of debate in April, the high court wrestled with this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”
“We're writing a rule for the ages,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch during oral arguments.
Two lower courts sided staunchly against Trump. The Supreme Court's ruling means it's increasingly unlikely that Trump's election interference trial will occur before the November election.
Read the full decision here:
READ NEXT: Hunter's Weekend Advice Drives Sleepy Joe To Catastrophe!
