The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump enjoys “absolute” immunity from prosecution for his “official duties” while in office, but left the precise scope of that protection to be determined by lower courts.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision voided an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Washington and paved the way for further appeals by Trump’s legal team, which could delay the trial timeline for the 2020 election lawsuits against Trump by months or years, if they even happen at all.
“The President does not enjoy immunity from criminal liability for non-official acts, and not all of his acts are official,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “The President is not above the law, but Congress cannot criminalize the President’s acts in carrying out executive responsibilities under the Constitution.”
“Thus, the president cannot be prosecuted for the exercise of core constitutional powers and, at a minimum, the president enjoys presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts,” Roberts added. “This immunity applies equally to all staff members of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party affiliation.”
Lawyers for Trump, 78, who appointed three of the Supreme Court’s nine justices, have argued in their efforts to dismiss four lawsuits against the former president that offer blanket protection from prosecution for any action taken while in office.
The 45th president is criminally charged with “misleading the United States through fraud, deception and deception,” disrupting the electoral vote process, “obstructing Congress’s proceedings on January 6th to count and certify the results of the presidential election,” and engaging in acts “in violation of the right to vote and to have that vote counted.”
The former president’s campaign argued his efforts were “official acts” protected by his job, but special counsel Jack Smith argued they were still subject to criminal prosecution.
Last week, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the obstruction charge in the case, but prosecutors are confident the ruling will not undermine the main thrust of their case.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s “immunity” theory last year, but the decision was upheld in February by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Justice Chutkan adjourned the case pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a high-profile exchange in the circuit court, Judge Florence Pan posed a hypothetical scenario of a president who has not been impeached but who orders SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent, and asked, “Would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
Trump lawyer Jon Sauer responded that the president must first be impeached and convicted, arguing that immunity applies to presidential actions but not to personal actions.
Sauer argued that such immunity is guaranteed by the Constitution, which gives executive power to the president, and the Delegation of Power Clause.
Slam dunk? Not so fast.
Initially, many legal experts predicted that Smith’s position against “absolute” immunity was conclusive and that the Supreme Court would reject Trump’s challenge for an immunity card.
But during oral arguments at the Supreme Court in April, it was clear the conservative majority was struggling with the question, seeking some kind of middle ground and suggesting that lower courts had not done enough research.
Arguments on both sides lasted about two hours and 40 minutes, noticeably longer than usual, as conservative justices worried that throwing out Trump’s immunity suit could lead to future politically motivated, retaliatory prosecutions against the president.
“I am not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of our criminal law based on allegations about the motives of political opponents,” Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized.
“We’re writing rules that will stand the test of time.”
The justices said most prosecutors could easily hand down indictments to a grand jury and worried that without presidential immunity the CEO would be a prime target for such tactics, which could be destabilizing.
Ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden remained silent but said he “cannot think of any reason.” Why the President Should Have Total Immunity From the prosecution.
Trump didn’t need to win.
Former President Trump only had to delay the lawsuit because of the next election, which he did successfully.
If he is elected to a second term on Nov. 5, he could theoretically order the Department of Justice to unravel the federal case.
Another possibility, although untested, is that Trump may seek to pardon himself.
“We’ve never answered whether a president can do that,” Gorsuch said during oral argument. “Fortunately, that question has never been asked of us.”
In addition to the 2020 election interference case, Smith is also prosecuting Trump on the Mar-a-Lago case (40 counts), in which he is accused of illegally storing large amounts of classified documents after leaving the White House.
Trump also faces 10 criminal charges related to interference in the 2020 election in Georgia, bringing his total to 54. He has denied wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
So far, none of those three lawsuits have had trial dates set. President Trump has made separate efforts to block the Georgia lawsuit.
Trump was already convicted of 34 charges in the Manhattan hush-payment case in May and is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention.
Supreme Court term ends
Supreme Court terms typically end by the end of June, so Monday marks a rare start to July in recent years.
But his term proved packed with politically dangerous and significant cases, including abortion, firearms, labor unions, censorship by big tech companies, redistricting, and the Chevron Difference.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor complained about her grueling schedule earlier this year and has come under pressure from some progressives to step down while Democrats have the political power to replace her.
“Cases are getting bigger and more demanding. The number of amici is increasing and the emergency case schedule is much busier. I’m exhausted,” she said. According to Bloomberg Law.
“Before, we had a lot of summer off, but that’s not the case anymore. Our emergency calendar is busy almost every week.”
At present, the High Court Less than 20 The state has several lawsuits on its roster for the next term, which begins on Oct. 7, including a high-profile challenge to Tennessee’s transgender laws.
