The Supreme Court on Monday ruled former President Donald Trump may have some immunity from prosecution related to actions he took in the aftermath of the 2020 election, dramatically undercutting special counsel Jack Smith’s case.
The majority 6-3 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts held that a former president is entitled to “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “presumptive immunity” for all official acts. But it held there is no immunity for “unofficial acts.”
The indictment doesn’t disappear
The central question in the case was whether Trump is immune from prosecution for his conduct in office after the 2020 election. Smith, who had secured victories in two lower courts on the immunity argument, argued that Trump’s actions fell outside the scope of presidential duties and should not be protected.
Roberts’s majority decision does not absolve Trump of his four-count indictment.
“The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s interactions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public,” the chief justice wrote. The case will be sent back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan for further inspection as to which acts Trump engaged in were public or private conduct.
“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” the majority opinion added.
Since April, the high court has been toiling over its decision in Trump v. United States, which stems from Smith’s four-count indictment alleging Trump attempted to subvert the 2020 election results and that Trump intended for the Jan. 6 riot to happen.
Lower courts repudiated for hasty decisions
The majority underscored that there are “critical threshold” matters in this case that must be addressed now by the trial court judge, such as distinctions between a “President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct.”
Roberts’s opinion also appeared to chide the lower courts that rendered their decisions against immunity on a “highly expedited basis.”
“Because those courts categorically rejected any form of Presidential immunity, they did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial,” the majority held.
Trial could be delayed till after election
The Supreme Court’s decision to delay the ruling until July 1 has already provided Trump with a temporary reprieve from seeing the case go to trial ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
Now that lower courts must inspect whether Trump is immune from certain acts listed in the indictment, it wholeheartedly adds to that delay even further and could delay the trial until past the Nov. 5 election.
Liberals flame Republican-appointed majority
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson broke from the majority. Sotomayor spoke from the bench, delivering “I dissent” with an icy tone as she read on behalf of the Democratic-appointed justices.
Reading from the bench, Sotomayor said, “Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom … the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.”
Jackson, the newest member of the high court appointed by Trump’s political rival, President Joe Biden, appeared upset as she listened to the majority opinion and wrote in her own separate dissent that the majority was planting the seeds for “absolute power.”
“To the extent that the majority’s new accountability paradigm allows Presidents to evade punishment for their criminal acts while in office, the seeds of absolute power for Presidents have been planted,” Jackson wrote.
What happened inside and outside the courtroom
Approximately 100 people were attending the opinion announcements on Monday, most of them law students, lawyers, and some family members of the justices. Trump attorney D. John Sauer, who argued the case before the court in April, was also in attendance.
The reaction to the decision was swift from the former president. Trump championed the Supreme Court’s ruling in a statement Monday morning immediately following the decision.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump posted on Truth Social moments after the ruling was issued.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a staunch ally of Trump and a possible contender for his vice presidential pick, said, “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a historic victory for President Donald Trump, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Smith’s indictment includes charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S., conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing an official proceeding, and violating a post-Civil War Reconstruction Era civil rights statute that makes it a crime to conspire to violate the right to vote.
Trump pleaded not guilty in August to a four-count indictment related to election subversion.
Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
