The US Supreme Court on Monday handed down a landmark decision holding that the US president has “absolute immunity” from constitutional liability and “some degree of immunity” from official duties, in what could be a significant victory for Donald Trump. 6-3 Verdict Legal experts called it a major victory for former President Trump, but the ruling fell short of what Trump’s lawyers had demanded.
The ruling could have a direct impact on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump on criminal charges stemming from the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The indictment alleges that Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election by knowingly spreading false claims of election fraud and obstructing the counting of votes and the certification of the results.
Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center wrote that the Supreme Court “handed former President Donald Trump a major victory and a major defeat to Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
“I believe the only sensible option for Smith now is to drop the charges,” Whelan wrote in National Review. WebsiteWhelan I got it. He was highly critical of Trump’s post-election actions: “It will be at least two years before the indictment goes to trial and it is completely unclear what parts of his case Mr. Smith will be able to put together. And, of course, if Mr. Trump is elected in November, he will drop the indictment.”
Jonathan Turley, Professor of Constitutional Law With labels “It’s a big win” for President Trump, said House Speaker Mike Johnson. It is called This is a “win” for Trump and future presidents. Trump called it a “huge win” on social media. But Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell Warned Trump did not win, and Smith said he would “contend that Trump’s actions were not ‘official acts.'” But Swalwell acknowledged that “criminal cases will not be tried before the election.”
Today’s Supreme Court decision is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith.
The Court has made clear that the President has immunity from liability for his official acts.
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) July 1, 2024
The High Court took up the case to consider the question: “Do former presidents enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for acts allegedly committed while in office?” However, the Court’s answer to this question is not easily summarised.
The majority held that the President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts performed within the scope of his constitutional authority and has presumed immunity from prosecution for all official acts. The Court ruled that there is no immunity for non-official acts.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Court’s conservatives.
“We conclude that, under the constitutional separation of powers structure, the nature of presidential power requires that former presidents be afforded some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office,” Roberts wrote. “At least with respect to the exercise of the president’s core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. They are also entitled to immunity for the remaining official acts. But at this stage in the case, it is not necessary, and we have not determined, whether immunity must be absolute or whether presumptive immunity would suffice.”
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit. The question now is, “What distinguishes official conduct from unofficial conduct?”
“The President does not enjoy immunity for non-official acts, and not all of his acts are official,” Roberts wrote in his conclusion. “The President is not above the law. But Congress cannot criminalize presidential acts in the exercise of executive responsibilities under the Constitution. And the system of separation of powers designed by the Framers of the Constitution has always required a vigorous and independent executive branch. Thus, the President cannot be prosecuted for the exercise of core Constitutional powers and is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumption of immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. This immunity applies equally to all officials of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policies, or party affiliation.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by the court’s two other liberal justices, warning that the majority opinion gave former President Trump “all the immunity he sought and more.”
“I dissent because our Constitution does not exonerate former presidents from criminal or treasonable conduct,” she wrote. “The relationship of the president to the people has been irrevocably altered. In every exercise of civil power, the president is now a king above the law.”
Roberts said the majority opinion was not as far-reaching as Sotomayor argued.
“As for the dissent,” Roberts wrote, “it strikes a chillingly pessimistic tone that is completely out of proportion to the Court’s actual decisions today. The Court concludes that immunity extends to formal discussions between the president and the attorney general, and then remands the case back to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first place’ whether and to what extent Mr. Trump’s remaining alleged conduct qualifies for immunity.”
“Mr. Trump asserts immunity far broader than the limited immunity we have granted him,” Roberts wrote.
Photo credit: ©Getty Images/Pool
Michael Faust He has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years, and his work has appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today, Christian Post, Leaf Chronicle, Toronto Star and Knoxville News Sentinel.
