On July 1st, the United States Supreme Court handed former President Trump a significant victory in granting him immunity, largely shielding him from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his presidency.
In a 6-3 decision, the nine justices confirmed that the President has absolute immunity for actions within his core responsibilities and implied immunity for all other official acts. This ruling is expected to significantly delay the progress of Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that the President’s immunity must be absolute when exercising core constitutional powers.
The Court divided Trump’s actions into three categories: core constitutional powers, official acts, and unofficial acts (private actions), determining immunity only for the former.
The decision has significant implications for Trump’s legal battles, weakening many of the charges brought by Prosecutor Smith. The Court viewed Trump’s efforts post-2020 election loss as a byproduct of his official duties.
Allegations surrounding Trump’s interactions with Vice President Mike Pence were also considered official acts deserving of immunity, according to the Court.
However, dissenting Justice Sotomayor criticized the breadth of the Court’s immunity scope, warning of potential consequences and asserting that this immunity could facilitate abuse of presidential power.
While the Court’s decision seemingly resolves many issues in Trump’s case, it remands the matter back to lower courts for analysis, likely delaying any potential trial further.
Of the four criminal charges Trump faces, three involve questions of presidential immunity. Judge Chutkan, overseeing the federal election fraud case against Trump, must now carefully determine the nature of the alleged behaviors and whether they fall under official duties, based on the Supreme Court’s new ruling.
Special Prosecutor Smith faces challenges in distinguishing between Trump’s private and official actions, with the Court ruling out the use of evidence from Trump’s official acts in prosecution.
In another separate opinion, Justice Barrett indicated support for prosecuting Trump regarding his pressure on Arizona legislators, post his election loss in the state, but this may further delay the proceedings.
These legal battles are unlikely to reach trial before the November election, with ongoing uncertainties on the interpretation and application of the Supreme Court’s decision by both sides.
Trump’s current trial involvement centers on “hush money” charges in New York, with a sentencing decision scheduled for July 11th. Should Trump win the election before the resolution of the pending cases, it is speculated that he could move to dismiss the charges through the new Attorney General.