Washington — The Supreme Court raised the bar for prosecuting President Donald Trump on Monday, ruling that he may be immune from prosecution for some acts as president but not others in the federal election interference case, adding a new obstacle to special counsel Jack Smith's ability to bring the case to trial.
In a novel and potentially momentous case about the limits of presidential power, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to reject Trump's broad immunity claim. That means charges related to his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election will not be dismissed, but some conduct closely related to his core duties as president will be beyond the reach of prosecutors, the court said.
“A HUGE WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN,” Trump posted in capital letters on his social media site, Truth Social.
The ruling was welcomed by Trump's Republican allies but widely condemned by Democrats, and President Joe Biden, in a televised address from the White House on Monday night, called it “a terrible disservice to the American people.”
“No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.” [With] “Today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity marks a fundamental shift in virtually every respect,” Biden said.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying further review by lower courts was needed to determine what conduct Trump could be prosecuted for. Among the conduct the Supreme Court found to be core presidential powers and therefore covered by immunity were contacts between Trump and Justice Department officials. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Trump was also “presumably not prosecuted” for his contacts with Vice President Mike Pence in the weeks before his supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The indictment alleges that Trump tried to pressure the Justice Department to investigate unfounded claims of widespread election fraud as part of his plan to remain in power despite Biden's election victory. Trump also sought to refuse to certify the election results as part of Pence's ceremonial role at a joint session of Congress on January 6.
“The president is not above the law,” Roberts wrote, “but Congress cannot criminalize the president's conduct in carrying out executive responsibilities under the Constitution.”
What that means for the upcoming trial remains to be seen. Trump's lawyers acknowledged during oral arguments in April that at least some of the charges relate to personal conduct that isn't protected by the immunity defense. Similarly, Justice Department lawyers representing the special counsel said the prosecution could proceed even if some official conduct were protected.
Smith's office declined to comment on Monday's ruling.
At a minimum, the case will be subject to further review by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine what, if any, other conduct alleged in the indictment is protected. Among the conduct she will review to determine whether it qualifies for immunity are Trump's contacts with individuals outside the federal government, including state election officials, such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who Trump pressured to reject the election results that showed Biden won.
Prosecutors will also have an opportunity to refute arguments that Trump's contacts with Pence were protected — a decision that will depend on whether prosecuting Trump for those conducts “poses a risk of impinging on the powers and functions of the executive branch,” Roberts wrote.
Regarding his contacts with state election officials, Roberts wrote that the president has “broad authority to speak on matters of public concern,” including the conduct of elections. But he added that the president has “no role” in states' certification of their elections. Roberts said Chutkan would need to “closely analyze” the indictment to determine whether Trump's actions are protected.
In a further blow to Smith, the court ruled that any conduct for which Trump was exonerated could not be admitted as evidence in court.
The court's three liberal justices strongly dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that the decision “makes a mockery of a fundamental principle of our Constitution and political system: that no person is above the law.”
She added that “the Constitution does not exonerate former presidents from responsibility for criminal or treasonable acts.”
She warned that the ruling could have far-reaching effects by protecting a range of presidential actions.
“The president should be allowed to break the law, to use the perks of his office for personal gain, and to abuse his public power,” Sotomayor wrote. “Because if he knew he might one day be held accountable for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like to be. That is the message of the majority today.”
In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the ruling as “a five-alarm fire that threatens to extinguish democratic self-governance.”
Even if a new hearing doesn't take that long, the trial is unlikely to be finished by Election Day. Previously, it had been suggested that the trial wouldn't begin for at least three months after the Supreme Court's decision, meaning it may not begin until early October at the earliest. The trial itself could last up to 12 weeks.
The case drew national attention to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three justices appointed by Trump. The court ruled in March that Colorado could not remove Trump from its electoral rolls, giving him an advantage heading into an election year.
The Supreme Court has also been criticised for delaying the hearing of Trump's appeal, which some see as a victory for Trump because it meant the trial did not take place in March as originally planned.
Legally speaking, the case was unprecedented — no president had ever been indicted after leaving office — and the Court was addressing a legal question that had never been raised before: whether the president has some immunity from liability for his primary duties under the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which defines presidential power in relation to the other branches of government.
Arguments before the court focused on Trump's official actions, with both sides agreeing that former presidents have no immunity from liability for their personal actions.
The Supreme Court stepped in after a federal appeals court ruled on Feb. 6 that Trump could not avoid prosecution, saying he became “Citizen Trump” once he left office and should be treated like any other criminal defendant. The Justice Department has long argued that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.
The appeals court did not analyze which of the acts listed in the indictment could be considered official acts, a fact that appeared to irritate some justices during oral argument.
Trump's lawyers pointed to a 1982 Supreme Court decision that gives the president immunity from civil lawsuits for conduct “outside” the bounds of his presidential duties.
Smith's team argued that there is no broad immunity that protects former presidents from being prosecuted for crimes they committed while in office.
The federal indictment handed up by a grand jury in Washington in August consisted of four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempted obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to violate rights, particularly the right to vote.
In a separate case related to Jan. 6, the court on Friday narrowed the scope of a law that punishes obstruction of official business. Trump has also been charged with that offense, but legal experts said Friday's ruling may not affect his case.
According to the indictment, Trump conspired to “subvert the legitimate results of the 2020 Presidential Election by knowingly using false claims of election fraud and to interfere with the government's ability to collect, count, and certify the election results.”
The indictment focuses on Trump's involvement in a plot to submit a false election certification to Congress in an attempt to invalidate Biden's victory, a series of events that culminated in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Trump has pleaded not guilty, saying he merely expressed concerns, without any evidence, that the election was tainted by widespread fraud. The case is one of four criminal charges he is currently fighting.
