SCOTUS Rules Trump Immune for Official Acts, Delaying Trial Past Election

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is valid for official acts, but not for unofficial conduct, granting a partial victory to Trump. The decision, which saw justices voting 6-3 along ideological lines, has significant implications for the upcoming 2024 election.

The court’s ruling stated, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.” The case, in which Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of unlawfully plotting to overturn the 2020 election results, has been sent back to a lower D.C. court for further review.

• Impact on Election Timing: The timing of the ruling, issued on the final day of the term, reduces the likelihood of a trial taking place before the November election. The Associated Press noted that the decision may eliminate the chances of a pre-election trial, especially given a prior ruling that weakened the Justice Department’s January 6-related obstruction charges.

• Trump’s Reaction: Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, posting, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

The case now returns to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will determine what constitutes official acts. The ruling adds complexity to the prosecution, as the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated that any testimony or records of immune conduct “may not be admitted as evidence at trial.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with most of the opinion but opposed this restriction, arguing for the established procedure to be followed.

• Liberal Justices’ Dissent: All three liberal justices opposed the ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, warned that the majority’s reasoning could allow a president to evade accountability for severe abuses of power, such as ordering assassinations or taking bribes. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she wrote.

Trump’s lawyers had filed to dismiss the case last October, claiming his actions were within his “official duties.” Special counsel Jack Smith argued that accepting Trump’s immunity argument would give presidents a “license” to commit crimes in office. Judge Chutkan, an Obama appointee, rejected Trump’s claim, asserting that presidential service does not grant immunity from criminal accountability.

• Previous Rulings: A federal appeals court panel had also rejected the immunity argument in February, and the Supreme Court agreed to take up the question soon after. Chutkan had initially set the trial for March 4, one day before Super Tuesday, but this plan is now in doubt following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Trump faces three other criminal matters during his 2024 campaign, including another case over handling classified documents and civil litigation. His defense team has cited presidential immunity in a request to dismiss the documents case, which has been indefinitely postponed.

In a separate New York hush-money case, Trump was convicted on all counts, with sentencing scheduled for July 11, just before the GOP convention. Trump has vowed to appeal. Additionally, a case in Georgia related to the 2020 election has been paused, likely until after the 2024 contest, as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis seeks to remain involved.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed.