Supreme Court Grants Trump Partial Immunity in Landmark Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has partial immunity from prosecution for actions within his constitutional powers, impacting his ongoing legal battles and the 2024 presidential race.

By Jackie Jacobs // EEW Magazine

AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald Trump cannot face prosecution for actions within his constitutional powers, marking a historic decision on presidential immunity.

In a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court overturned a lower court's decision that had denied Trump's claim of immunity from federal criminal charges related to his attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices supported the ruling, while the three liberal justices dissented.

Trump, the Republican contender challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the upcoming November 5 election, benefited from the Supreme Court's protracted handling of the case. The ruling's deferral of key questions to a trial judge reduces the likelihood of Trump facing trial before the election on these charges, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Supreme Court: Bottom row, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," Roberts wrote.

Roberts further clarified that immunity for former presidents is "absolute" regarding their "core constitutional powers," and "presumptive" for actions within the "outer perimeter" of their official duties, imposing a high burden of proof on prosecutors.

President Biden criticized the decision as setting "a dangerous precedent," warning that it could erode legal constraints on presidential power. "This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America ... no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States," Biden said, echoing concerns from his campaign that the ruling might enable authoritarianism.

The decision could potentially weaken parts of the special counsel's case as U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan evaluates the extent of Trump's immunity.

Roberts emphasized the need for presidents to perform their duties "fearlessly and fairly" without the threat of prosecution, while stating that "unofficial acts" are not protected by immunity.

Trump celebrated the ruling on social media, calling it a "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY."

Trump, 78, is the first former U.S. president to be criminally prosecuted and convicted. Smith's charges are among four criminal cases against Trump.

The Court reviewed four areas of conduct in the indictment: discussions with Justice Department officials post-election; alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject Biden's certification; involvement in creating fake pro-Trump electors; and actions related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

The decision provided Trump with significant protections but stopped short of granting absolute immunity for all official actions. The Court stated that actions within the "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" are immune, while others are "presumptively immune," subject to further review.

The Court determined Trump was absolutely immune for discussions with Justice Department officials and "presumptively immune" in interactions with Pence, while other matters were remanded for lower courts to decide on immunity.

This ruling is the first in U.S. history to establish that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in some instances. The conservative majority of the Court includes three justices appointed by Trump.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented sharply, arguing that the ruling creates a "law-free zone around the president."

"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune," Sotomayor wrote.

"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," Sotomayor added.

Trump's trial, initially set for March 4, is now delayed indefinitely due to the immunity issue. The case has been litigated for nine months since Trump's claim in October.

Legal experts suggest the ruling will delay any trial until after the election. UCLA Law professor Rick Hasen noted, "The Supreme Court has put out a fact-intensive test on the boundaries of the president's immunity - with a huge thumb on the scale favoring the president's immunity - in a way that will surely push this case past the election."

"Sorting out the court's opinion and how it applies is going to take a while," Georgetown University law professor Erica Hashimoto added. "No chance of a pre-election trial."

The Supreme Court's recent rulings have also favored Trump, including reinstating him on the Colorado primary ballot and raising the legal threshold for obstruction charges in Smith's case.

In the special counsel's indictment, Trump faces charges of conspiring to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiring against Americans' voting rights. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

In May, a New York jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying documents to cover up hush money payments before the 2016 election. Trump also faces charges in two other cases, all of which he denies, calling them politically motivated.

The Supreme Court's involvement in this case is its most significant since Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 election. If Trump wins the presidency again, he could attempt to halt the prosecutions or pardon himself for federal crimes.