On Monday, the Supreme Court raised the bar for prosecuting Donald Trump by ruling that he has immunity for some of his actions as president in his federal election interference case, but not for others. This decision adds another obstacle for special counsel Jack Smith in bringing the case to trial.
In a significant case concerning the limits of presidential power, the justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to reject Trump’s broad claim of immunity.
This means the charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results will not be dismissed, but certain actions closely tied to his presidential duties are off-limits to prosecutors.
Trump celebrated the decision on his social media platform, Truth Social, calling it a “Big win for our Constitution and democracy.”
While Trump’s Republican allies praised the ruling, Democrats strongly criticized it. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., stated that it “enables the former president to weaken our democracy by breaking the law.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, noted that further proceedings in lower courts are necessary to determine which conduct Trump can be prosecuted for.
Roberts stated that actions like Trump’s contacts with Justice Department officials and his communications with Vice President Mike Pence in the weeks leading up to the January 6 Capitol attack are core presidential powers and thus immune from prosecution.
The indictment alleges that Trump pressured the Justice Department to investigate baseless claims of widespread election fraud as part of a plan to remain in power despite President Joe Biden’s victory.
Trump also allegedly wanted Pence to refuse to certify the election results during the January 6 joint session of Congress.
“The president is not above the law,” Roberts wrote. “But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution.”
The decision means U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan must now determine what, if any, other conduct alleged in the indictment is protected.
This includes Trump’s interactions with state election officials, like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whom Trump pressured to reject results showing Biden’s victories.
Prosecutors will also have a chance to counter the suggestion that Trump’s contacts with Pence are protected. Roberts indicated that prosecuting Trump for those actions would depend on whether it would intrude on the executive branch’s authority and functions.
Roberts highlighted that while the president has “broad power to speak on matters of public concern,” including election conduct, the president plays no role in the certification of elections by states.
Chutkan must closely analyze the indictment to determine if Trump’s actions are protected.
Additionally, the court ruled that any conduct for which Trump is immune cannot be admitted as evidence at trial in any form.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented strongly, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that the ruling undermines the principle that no one is above the law. She warned that the decision could protect presidents for a wide range of actions.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a separate dissent, described the ruling as a “five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance.”
Even if new proceedings do not take much time, it is unlikely the trial will conclude before Election Day. A trial could potentially start in early October and last up to 12 weeks.
The case has put the national spotlight on the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump. The court had previously ruled that Colorado could not remove Trump from the ballot, providing him an election-year boost.
The Supreme Court intervened after a federal appeals court ruled in February that Trump was not immune from prosecution, stating that once he left office, he became “citizen Trump” and should be treated like any other criminal defendant.
Trump’s lawyers cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that endorsed presidential immunity from civil lawsuits when the underlying conduct concerns actions within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities.
Smith’s team argued that there is no broad immunity preventing former presidents from being prosecuted for criminal acts committed in office.
The federal indictment against Trump includes charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights, specifically the right to vote.
The indictment alleges that Trump conspired to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using false claims of election fraud to obstruct the government’s function of collecting, counting, and certifying the results. The events culminated in the January 6 Capitol riot.
Trump, who pleaded not guilty, maintains that he was expressing his concerns about alleged election fraud, despite lacking evidence. This case is one of four criminal prosecutions Trump is currently facing.