The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on Monday on whether former President Trump enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution, a landmark decision that comes just days after the court set aside a ruling that cast doubt on charges against hundreds of participants in the Jan. 6 riot and Trump himself.
As broad as Trump’s request for the Supreme Court is, so are the stakes: The former president is petitioning the court to toss out a Jan. 6 federal lawsuit alleging immunity.
While there is a good chance that the Supreme Court will reject Trump’s request for blanket immunity, several justices in April’s hearings signaled a willingness to provide some form of protection for the former officials from criminal prosecution.
“The question, as we’ve explored a little bit here today, is how to distinguish between private conduct that may or may not enjoy immunity and public conduct,” Neil Gorsuch, one of the court’s six conservative justices, said in April.
The immunity decision came on the heels of a Friday ruling that narrowed the scope of obstruction charges brought against many of the people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 in a separate, related case.
“Big news!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in response to the Supreme Court decision.
It also came after Thursday’s presidential debate, in which President Biden’s shaky performance has some Democrats more concerned than ever that Trump will win November’s election and stay in the White House for another four years.
The Supreme Court typically finishes its summer rulings by the end of June, but it has been in overtime in Trump’s case to make a direct decision and consider whether he should be granted complete immunity from prosecution.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced Friday that “all remaining” Supreme Court decisions will be released starting at 10 a.m. EDT on Monday. The exoneration decision will be released along with the decisions on the other three cases that were heard.
The Supreme Court justices spent a good deal of time in April questioning what conduct meets the requirements for immunity, comparing the public acts for which the president is entitled to immunity with the private acts for which he is not.
During their arguments, Trump’s legal team suggested that a president could avoid prosecution if he ordered the assassination of a political opponent.
While it seems unlikely that the court would take the case to such a logical extreme, even a more nuanced ruling could benefit Trump, who has so far adopted a strategy of seeking as much delay as possible in all of his criminal cases.
The Supreme Court could specify a standard for immunity that would give former presidents some protection and send the case back to a district court for Judge Tanya Chutkan to decide whether Trump’s actions meet that standard.
If that happens, Judge Chutkan could find that Trump still is not immune from prosecution, setting up a lengthy battle for appeal back to the Supreme Court.
President Trump has repeatedly asserted an immunity defense against Truth Social since oral arguments in April, but the issue did not come up during Thursday’s presidential debate because the Supreme Court has yet to issue a decision.
The court on Friday cast a shadow over one of the four charges Trump faces in the election interference case by siding with another Jan. 6 defendant fighting the same offense.
Five of the court’s six conservative justices, joined by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the Justice Department was interpreting the law too broadly, casting doubt on the Jan. 6 trial of more than 300 defendants.
Trump is charged with violating Section 1512(c)(2) of the Act and other provisions of the Act. He has pleaded not guilty.
The ruling, announced Friday, Jan. 6, sends the case of former police officer Joseph Fisher, who is accused of storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, back to a lower court for further review.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Jackson wrote that the decision did not bar prosecutions under Section 1512(c)(2) and that “the prosecution remains available” for lower courts to consider.
In addition to Trump’s immunity case, the Supreme Court is also considering the constitutionality of social media laws passed in Florida and Texas that restrict content moderation by major platforms due to conservative concerns that they are being censored.
The case, closely watched by anti-regulation advocates, will also see the Supreme Court rule on when the statute of limitations begins for challenging government regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act.
