Supreme Court carves out presidential immunity, likely delaying Trump trial
![Supreme Court carves out presidential immunity, likely delaying Trump trial](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/06/AP22277720765885.jpg?w=900)
The Supreme Court on Monday capped its term by determining core presidential powers are immune from criminal prosecution, a win for former President Trump that returns his federal case involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election back to a lower court to determine whether his actions leading up to Jan. 6 merit the protection.
In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution — a decision that stopped just short of granting the total immunity sought by Trump, but that nonetheless aids the former president by likely delaying that trial beyond the November election.
The decision takes a sledgehammer to some of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump, determining various actions Trump took to remain in power after losing the election were indeed protected.
“At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity,” Roberts wrote in his majority opinion.
“There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” the court determined elsewhere in the opinion.
The decision earned a stern rebuke from the court’s liberal justices, who condemned colleagues for broadly shielding presidents who commit crimes while in office.
"Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
"It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law."
The justices at oral arguments in April had appeared weary of some of the blanket immunity claims Trump’s team argued before them, including that assassinating political rivals would be considered an official act.
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote in dissent on Monday.
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” she continued. “Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
The decision returns the case to district court, where proceedings in the case have been paused while the high court weighed Trump’s immunity claims. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the matter, must now weigh the issue for a second time as well as other pending efforts by Trump seeking to toss the case.
The parties will now fight over how to apply the justices’ immunity test to the conduct alleged in Trump’s indictment, providing him with pathways to prolong the proceedings and delay his trial past Election Day, no matter how the case ultimately shakes out.
Though the Supreme Court’s opinion provides no definitive resolution, Roberts’s opinion does provide some “guidance” that dooms some allegations from moving forward.
The opinion condoned Trump’s outreach to the Department of Justice at a time where his allies were asking prosecutors to halt certification of election results to allow for investigation into what were baseless claims of election fraud.
“Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
The decision similarly notes that courts should not try to peer into the mind of a president when weighing their actions.
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” they wrote.
That position likewise earned rebuke from Roberts's dissenting colleagues.
“The main takeaway of today’s decision is that all of a President’s official acts, defined without regard to motive or intent, are entitled to immunity that is ‘at least . . . presumptive,’ and quite possibly ‘absolute,’” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.
Sotomayor read it aloud from the bench, a rarity that underscores the sharp disagreements on the case. She looked over at Roberts at times as she read it, though the chief justice never returned her gaze.
“No matter how you look at it, the majority’s official-acts immunity is utterly indefensible,” Sotomayor wrote.
As for other issues, like Trump’s pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence leading up to Jan. 6, those allegations could possibly still move forward.
“It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity,” Roberts wrote.
“We therefore remand to the District Court to assess … whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch,” he added.
The opinion did not address how the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity test applies to Trump’s two other criminal cases that haven’t yet gone to trial.
The justices had appeared wary of some blanket immunity claims Trump’s team argued before them in April, including that assassinating political rivals would be considered an official act.
The majority did not entirely side with the former president, rejecting his assertions of sweeping immunity that would swiftly require tossing his charges in Washington, D.C., as well as charges in two other criminal cases that have also not yet gone to trial.
Trump has mounted similar defenses in his other federal criminal case accusing him of mishandling classified documents and his Georgia charges accusing him of conspiring to subvert President Biden’s 2020 win in the state. He asserts he is immune from criminal prosecution because the charges involve decisions he made while still president.
Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, faced calls from Democrats to recuse from Trump’s case at the Supreme Court.
Thomas’s wife reportedly communicated with key people involved in Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, and Alito recently came under controversy for flags flown at his homes connected to the “Stop the Steal” effort.
Updated at 12:14 p.m. EDT
Date: | |
Tag: | Donald Trump |
Filter
-
CBS News - Top stories
Trump's sentencing delayed in New York conviction following Supreme Court immunity decision
Former President Donald Trump's sentencing for his New York criminal conviction has been delayed after the Supreme Court earlier this week ruled presidents have immunity for official acts while in office. CBS News' Robert Costa explains the ...New York -
The Guardian - World
The supreme court’s presidential immunity ruling mocks the rule of law | Corey Brettschneider
Citizens must make this presidential election about rescuing our democracy from authoritarianism. The US supreme court found this week that former presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for “official acts”. This ruling doesn’t just ... -
CBS News - Top stories
Jan. 6 victims frustrated over Supreme Court ruling on Trump immunity
Many of the victims and the families of those who were attacked in the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the Capitol are sharing their frustration and anger with the Supreme Court.Donald Trump -
NBC News - Politics
Conservative legal scholars say the Supreme Court's Trump immunity decision isn't conservative
The Supreme Court's decision to grant former President Donald Trump absolute immunity for some of his conduct in seeking to overturn the 2020 election has attracted a chorus of criticism from those who saw it as another sign of conservative ...Donald Trump -
MarketWatch - Business
‘None of these will survive’: The Supreme Court’s immunity decision may kill all the criminal cases against Trump
The opinion could hamstring all four criminal cases Trump has faced, legal experts say, leaving prosecutors in several — if not all of them — unable to proceed.Donald Trump -
NBC News - Politics
After immunity ruling, Trump’s hush money sentencing delayed
After the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity decision, the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York has postponed his sentencing that was scheduled for July 11, moving it to mid-September. NBC’s Laura Jarrett ... -
CBS News - Top stories
Why Trump's "hush money" sentencing is being delayed over immunity ruling
Donald Trump's sentencing for the conviction in his New York "hush money" trial is being postponed until September after his lawyers moved to toss the guilty verdict because of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling. Attorney and CBS ...Donald Trump -
The Guardian - World
The Guardian view on Trump and presidential immunity: the return of the king | Editorial
The supreme court’s sweeping ruling is a blow to democracy in the US. The supreme court’s ruling on presidential immunity combines a tectonic constitutional shift and immediate political repercussions to devastating effect. It allows one man to ...Donald Trump -
The New York Times - World
Why the Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Worries U.S. Allies
Legal experts say the U.S. Supreme Court ruling pushes past most of the norms in effect among American allies, adding more concern about the reliability of U.S. power. -
NBC News - Politics
Ex-DOJ officials who worked for Trump fear the Supreme Court just made it easy for him to weaponize the DOJ
Some ex-Justice Department officials who served under Trump during his first term fear that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling makes it easier for him to use the DOJ against his enemies if he is re-elected president.Donald Trump
More from The Hill
-
The Hill - Politics
More states on track to have abortion measures on ballot
Click in for more news from The Hill {beacon} Health Care Health Care The Big Story More states on track to have abortion measures on ballot Ballot measures in Arizona and Nebraska ensuring abortion access advanced closer to a vote, with groups ...Abortion -
The Hill - Politics
Fauci says he has 'no doubt' Biden is capable of continuing as president
Former White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci said in a new interview he has “no doubt” President Biden is mentally capable of serving as president, amid growing concern among Democrats about the president’s standing as the party’s ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Congress fights nonconsensual deepfakes
Welcome to The Hill's Technology newsletter {beacon} View Online Technology Technology The Big Story Congress to combat nonconsensual AI porn Political momentum is building to regulate the spread of nonconsensual explicit deepfakes as the ... -
The Hill - Politics
White House seeks to stop the bleeding amid new calls for Biden drop-out
The White House and Biden campaign sought to stop the bleeding on Wednesday, forcefully saying the president will not be dropping out of the race after a disastrous debate underscored concerns about his age and ability to serve. Allies and staff ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Federal judge issues narrow pause on FTC noncompete ban
A federal judge on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction on a nationwide ban on noncompete agreements issued this spring, calling into question its future in the face of opposition by prominent business groups. The Dallas-based tax firm Ryan ...