- Supreme Court historic decision granting Donald Trump immunity – he can claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took as president
- The decision that will likely further delay a trial on the federal election subversion charges against him
- The decision was 6-3, with the liberals in dissent
- It ruled that he is presumed immune from prosecution for pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election on Jan. 6, 2021, because Trump’s acts “involve official conduct”
- It left open the possibility that Trump can be prosecuted for other actions, particularly those with regard to people outside the executive branch and in the states
Supreme Court historic decision granting Donald Trump immunity
After the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, Donald Trump celebrated on social media, calling it a “big win for our constitution and democracy.”
Though Trump didn’t get all the protections he wanted, the ruling delayed his trial until after the November election. The six conservative justices’ decision weakened the federal case against Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election results. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s team will need to rework their case and evidence significantly.
The court’s 6-3 ruling ensures any prosecution will be delayed past November’s election. The justices set a high bar for the prosecution to meet, granting Trump immunity for official acts as president, including communications about election fraud with the Department of Justice. This part of the indictment is now void.
The justices stated there’s a presumption of immunity for other official acts, making it harder for prosecutors to bring a case. However, they clarified that presidents don’t have immunity for non-official actions. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasised this point, complicating the prosecution’s case.
Trump’s pressure on Vice President Pence and his comments on January 6th are likely to be considered official actions, subject to high legal standards. Additionally, the court ruled that testimony or private records of the president or his advisers are not admissible, limiting the evidence prosecutors can use.
Roberts explained that broad immunity is necessary to prevent criminal prosecution from influencing presidential decisions. “The president is not above the law,” he wrote, but Congress cannot criminalise presidential duties.
While Trump and his team saw the decision as a victory for democracy, the court’s three liberal justices strongly disagreed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the ruling essentially makes the president a king above the law.
The case now returns to the lower court, where decisions will be reviewed and potentially appealed, a process that could take months or years. If Trump wins the presidency in November, his appointees could potentially drop the case.
