CNN
—
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump can claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some actions he took during the final days of his presidency, a decision that is likely to further delay his pending trial on federal election interference charges.
The ruling, the Supreme Court’s most closely watched case this year, overturns a federal appeals court ruling in February that found Trump entitled to no immunity for crimes he allegedly committed while in office in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court’s decision was 6-3, with the court’s liberal wing dissenting. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a lengthy and strongly worded dissenting opinion in which she slammed the Court’s decision.
“We conclude that under the constitutional structure of separation of powers, the nature of presidential power requires that former presidents be afforded some immunity from criminal prosecution for their official duties while in office. At least with respect to the exercise of the presidential core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in Monday’s ruling.
“The President does not enjoy immunity from liability for informal acts, and not all of the President’s acts are official. The President is not above the law,” Roberts wrote.
The Chief Justice said the court must determine which of Trump’s conduct would be excused under the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court, and wrote that additional explanation would be necessary for the court to do so.
“We therefore remand for the district court to determine, with the benefit of the missing report, first of all, whether Mr. Trump’s conduct in this area was official or informal,” Roberts wrote, saying previous lower court decisions denying Trump immunity lacked a “factual analysis.”
02:51 – Source: CNN
‘I’m really scared’: Van Jones reacts to Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity
Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed frustration that the court sent the case back for a new hearing.
“I would have viewed the fundamental legal issues differently,” Barrett wrote in her concurring opinion, suggesting that at least parts of the case could move forward because Trump’s overall challenge to the indictment had failed.
“A President facing prosecution could challenge the constitutionality of the criminal statutes applicable to the official duties described in the indictment,” Barrett wrote.
“But if that challenge fails, he will have to stand trial,” she said.
She dissented from the court’s ruling that evidence relating to Trump’s official duties should be excluded from the trial, writing that she saw no reason to deviate from the “familiar, time-tested procedure” that allows for the inclusion of such evidence.
The decision was quickly welcomed by President Trump, who called it “a major victory for our Constitution and democracy” on Truth Social. Trump’s legal team has said they believe Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case may now be completely jeopardized because any communications Trump had with then-Vice President Mike Pence or Justice Department officials may be deemed official and therefore unable to be presented at trial.
The team said it could also help Trump in the classified documents litigation, though the initial position does not necessarily mean the legal process will ultimately play out that way.
In a conference call with media after the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday, the Biden campaign attacked a “divisive and compromised” Supreme Court, accusing the justices of handing Trump “the keys to dictatorship.”
The Supreme Court has made clear that informal conduct does not provide immunity, and Mr. Smith has previously made clear he believes his lawsuit can continue based on such informal conduct, meaning a lower court could take up Mr. Trump’s case this year if Mr. Smith narrows the scope of the charges.
But the high court left much of the work to lower courts to determine what is a public act and what is a private act.
Perhaps more importantly, the majority made clear that official acts would not be considered evidence at all at trial. This could make it much harder for Smith to prove Trump’s motives or other aspects of his case against Trump. Lower courts may not be able to look into the motives of a former president, Roberts wrote.
“Particular allegations, such as those involving discussions between President Trump and the Acting Attorney General, can be readily categorised in light of the nature of the official relationship between the President and the office that person holds,” Roberts wrote.
“Other allegations, including those concerning Mr. Trump’s communications with the Vice President, state officials and certain private entities, as well as statements to the public, raise more difficult questions,” Roberts wrote.
But Roberts said it’s up to lower courts to decide whether those actions qualify for immunity, and “that analysis is ultimately best left to the lower courts.”
Sotomayor, who wrote the opinion with the other two liberal justices, said the court’s decision “makes a mockery of the fundamental principle underlying our Constitution and political system: that no one is above the law.”
01:13 – Source: CNN
Sotomayor issues stern warning about presidential immunity ruling
“When a president exercises public power in any way, the majority’s reasoning provides him with immunity from criminal prosecution. Ordered Navy SEAL Unit 6 to assassinate a political opponent? Immunity. Plotted a military coup to stay in power? Immunity. Accepted bribes in exchange for a pardon? Immunity. Immunity, immunity, immunity,” Sotomayor wrote.
“It’s OK for the president to break the law, to use the privilege of his office for personal gain, and to use his public power for evil — because if he knew he might one day be held accountable for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like to be — that’s the majority’s message today,” Sotomayor wrote. “Even if these nightmare scenarios never come true — and I pray they never will, the damage has already been done. The relationship between the president and the American people has been irrevocably altered. In every use of his public power, the president is now a king above the law.”
“I oppose this because it puts our democracy at risk,” Sotomayor concluded.
This story has been updated to reflect additional developments and reactions.
CNN’s Paula Reid, Nikki Carvajal and Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.
