The 6-3 ruling along ideological lines appeared to reject a series of allegations in Trump's federal election interference trial, including his conversations with Justice Department officials after Joe Biden's 2020 election victory. And it suggests that the rest of the case against him may only proceed after further rulings from lower courts.
It seems highly unlikely that the 45th president would be tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election before voters cast their ballots in this year's presidential election, in which Trump is the Republican front-runner.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing the majority opinion, said, “The President cannot be prosecuted for the exercise of core Constitutional powers and, at a minimum, the President enjoys a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts.”
But Roberts added, “The president does not enjoy immunity from non-official acts, and not all of the president's acts are official. The president is not above the law.”
The Supreme Court's three liberal justices strongly dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the conservative majority “granted former President Trump all the immunity he sought and more.”
The majority “reconstructs the presidency” and “makes a mockery of the principle” that “no one is above the law,” Sotomayor said, in a statement joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Fearing for our democracy, I dissent.”
The majority left it to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which of the crimes alleged in the indictment were acts unofficially committed by the then-president, a move that would likely further narrow the scope of the charges Trump faces and add significant time and further appeals to the case.
Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz said Monday's ruling “creates more heat than light.” “Instead of determining whether or not there is categorical immunity for alleged criminal conduct, this new standard will force lower courts to grapple with which allegations in the indictment constitute official conduct, which will undoubtedly lead to longer trials and further appeals.”
Trump, who in May became the first former U.S. president to be convicted in an unrelated case in New York, is seeking to delay his three remaining criminal trials until after the November election and, if re-elected, could pressure the Justice Department to drop the federal charges soon after taking office.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's unprecedented immunity claim in the Washington case, rather than leave in place a unanimous appeals court decision that denied immunity and approved Trump's prosecution, effectively halted all preparations for the federal trial, which was originally scheduled to begin on March 4.
The justices heard oral arguments in the case in late April, so a decision is unlikely to be issued until the final days of their term — timing that has been criticized by Trump critics, who say Americans have a right to know the outcome of the trial in Washington, D.C., before voting for the next president.
Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with four felony counts in connection with Trump's plan to remain in power after Biden's 2020 victory: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct the Congressional certification of Biden's victory on January 6, 2021, obstruction of congressional proceedings, and conspiracy against a right (in this case, the right to vote).
Trump has contested the charges in Washington, arguing that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution, at least for acts related to their official duties, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress.
During oral arguments, Trump's lawyer, D. Jon Sauer, acknowledged that the former president could be prosecuted for private conduct while in office but argued that much of Trump's alleged conduct, including his interactions with the Republican National Committee, constituted official conduct.
Trump is accused of using false claims of widespread voter fraud to pressure state officials, the Justice Department and former Vice President Mike Pence to change the election results, of conspiring with others to submit fake electoral counts from battleground states to Congress in an attempt to force lawmakers to throw out lawful votes, and of encouraging his supporters to gather at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, where a violent mob blocked the certification of Biden's victory for hours.
The Supreme Court's decision on Monday highlighted Trump's discussions with Justice Department officials after the 2020 election in which he tried to persuade them to aggressively pursue his baseless claims of election fraud., Protected by presidential immunity.
“President Trump enjoys complete immunity from prosecution for conduct involving his discussions with Department of Justice officials,” the court ruled, adding that the president is allowed to discuss investigations and prosecutions with Justice Department officials.
The Supreme Court found that the line was not as clear when it came to Trump's conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence and his public comments before the January 6 riot.
While most of the president's public statements “are likely to fall well within the scope of his official responsibilities,” there may be circumstances in which the president speaks privately “as a candidate for public office or as a leader of a political party.”
The ruling also suggested the indictment may misrepresent the full tenor of Trump's comments before the riot, saying: “The indictment contains only excerpts and brief fragments of a speech Mr. Trump delivered on the morning of January 6, but omits the full text or context of that speech.”
Knowing what else the then-president said, or who posted those remarks and organized the rallies, “may be relevant to the classification of each communication,” the majority wrote.
There were not many historical cases for the justices to look to for guidance in resolving the competing claims. Trump vs. the United StatesForty years ago, in the case of President Richard M. Nixon, the Supreme Court held that a president is constitutionally protected from civil lawsuits by private citizens for actions he takes as part of his official duties, even if those actions are “extrinsic” to those duties.
The decision was intended to prevent the threat of civil litigation from disrupting the president's duties, but it made no mention of criminal charges.
Following the D.C. Circuit decision, written jointly by justices appointed by presidents of both parties, the Supreme Court took nearly two weeks to announce in late February that it would rehear the immunity case. The justices scheduled oral arguments for late April, making a decision unlikely before the final days of their term. The decision to hear the case and the timing of the justices' hearing have been criticized by Trump critics, who argue that Americans should know the outcome of the D.C. case before voting for the next president in November.
When the justices decided to take on the case, they rephrased the question they were considering as “whether, and if so, to what extent, former presidents are entitled to presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct allegedly related to their official duties while in office.”
During oral arguments, many justices seemed concerned with how to distinguish between a president's private actions and those that are part of his official duties and thus may be protected by some degree of immunity.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
