The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to a degree of immunity from prosecution, a decision likely to delay the trial concerning his alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election.
The court’s decision, which split along partisan lines with a 6-3 vote, has significant implications for the separation of powers and the legal accountability of former presidents.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, emphasised that while the president is not above the law, Congress cannot criminalise the president’s conduct in executing constitutional responsibilities.
“The president is not above the law,” Roberts wrote. “But Congress may not criminalise the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent executive. The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the decision undermines a foundational principle of the Constitution. “Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” she wrote. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower courts for further analysis, distinguishing between official and private conduct. This remand makes it unclear how much the trial will be delayed, though it now seems increasingly unlikely to commence before the upcoming election. Should Trump win the election, he could potentially direct the Justice Department to drop the charges.
Trump has claimed absolute immunity based on the separation of powers and a 1982 Supreme Court precedent granting such immunity in civil cases for actions within the “outer perimeter” of presidential responsibilities. Lower courts have rejected this claim.
Federal District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan stated, “Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get out of jail free’ pass.”
A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concurred, noting that “former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defences of any other criminal defendant.”
The Supreme Court agreed to address the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions during a president’s tenure. This term, the court also dealt with two other cases related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
In March, the court unanimously ruled that states could not use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to exclude Trump from the presidential ballot, and on Friday, it decided that federal prosecutors had misapplied an obstruction law in prosecuting some January 6 rioters.
Despite the rapid pace in resolving Trump’s ballot eligibility, the immunity case has progressed more slowly. Special Counsel Jack Smith urged the justices to address Trump’s immunity claims swiftly, but the court initially denied this request. After the appeals court ruled against Trump, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal, leading to Monday’s ruling.
During oral arguments, conservative justices indicated a preference for a broad ruling on presidential power rather than focusing on the specifics of the charges against Trump. “We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch remarked.
Follow us on:
