This is necessary “to ensure the independence and effective functioning of the executive branch and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue vigilance,” it said.
But the court ruled that the president is not immune from prosecution for unofficial acts.
This final ruling opens the door for Trump’s trial on charges of subverting the 2020 federal election to continue. But it also ruled out some of Trump’s actions and left many points unresolved, which should lead to a more drawn-out legal battle and even more likely one that will continue beyond the 2024 election, when Trump will be the Republican front-runner.
Below are some takeaways from the ruling.
1. It’s a clear victory for Trump
While Trump did not receive the “absolute” immunity for all conduct he initially sought (and oral arguments suggested that this was unlikely), the ruling is a clear political victory: It gives him more immunity than many had expected, and it should bring the litigation to an end.
The justices did not go into detail about what would and would not qualify as a fair trial in Trump’s case, instead setting a broad standard and sending the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to consider how that standard might affect the trial.
- The court ruled that Trump cannot be charged with any conduct “related to discussions with Department of Justice officials,” a key part of the federal indictment. For example, this would likely exonerate Trump’s communications with Jeffrey Clark, the Department of Justice official who was a key figure in the Georgia indictment alongside Trump, as well as other senior Department of Justice officials who told him his voter fraud theory was false.
- he Presumed Trump is exempt from prosecution for pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results on January 6, 2021, because his conduct “related to his official duties.” The court said the burden is on the government to prove that prosecuting Trump in that case “would not pose a risk of infringement on the powers or functions of the executive branch.”
- The Supreme Court left open the possibility that Trump could be prosecuted for other conduct, particularly involving people outside the executive branch or within the state. The Court ruled that “the alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as belonging to the specific functions of the President.”
That means some of Trump’s actions will still be prosecutable, but some will not. What will and won’t be prosecutable has yet to be determined.
Another important point is that the court ruled that not only can Trump not be prosecuted for certain conduct, but that he cannot be prosecuted for conduct that is exempt. It can’t even be used as evidence against him.So, for example, communications with Justice Department officials cannot be used to prove a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of an election.
On this point, one of the six conservative justices in the majority dissented.
“The Constitution does not require that the circumstances surrounding the president’s conduct be concealed from jurors. can They may be held liable,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion.
She added: ” RewardThe jury: 1 pound And that Quo,parable Quocannot, in isolation, provide a basis for criminal liability of the President.”
2. Trump’s lawsuit will likely be delayed until after the 2024 election.
While Trump could technically still be indicted, the decision creates a lot of uncertainty and, most importantly for the 2024 election, will likely delay things further. Trump was not expected to be tried before the election, which reduces any chance that one might have existed.
That’s because Chutkan will have to consider which parts of the prosecution’s case are now allowed, which could lead to lengthy debate and consideration. Such a decision could also lead to a lengthy appeal. Chutkan previously said that if the case is remanded, he would give Trump’s defense team three months to prepare for trial. That means that regardless of any new decision that may be made, the earliest trial date is already in October.
The Supreme Court majority suggested it needed to reconsider certain aspects of the indictment, namely what Trump said on January 6th.
“[The indictment] “This decision includes only excerpts and brief excerpts from the speech President Trump delivered on the morning of January 6, without providing the full text or context of the speech,” the majority wrote. “Whether the tweet, speech, and other communications by President Trump on January 6 constituted official acts may depend on their respective content and context.”
He added that “this necessarily fact-based analysis is best conducted first by the district court.”
3. Liberal judge warns of dire consequences: ‘King above the law’
It’s tempting to view this decision in the context of Trump’s trial because that’s the immediate concern, but it will also have far-reaching implications for future presidents, including a potential second term for Trump.
The Supreme Court’s liberal wing raised major alarms about the decision, saying it would empower future presidents to take drastic action.
Perhaps the most striking argument in the case revolved around what hypothetical implications the granting of immunity might have in the future.
The Supreme Court’s liberal wing said there is a lot at stake right now. Justice Sonia Sotomayor went the furthest in her dissent.
“Order Navy SEAL Unit 6 to assassinate a political opponent? With impunity,” Sotomayor wrote. “Plan a military coup to stay in power? With impunity. Accept a bribe in exchange for amnesty? With impunity. With impunity, with impunity, with impunity.”
Sotomayor added: “The relationship between the president and the American people has been irrevocably altered. In every exercise of public power, the president is now a king above the law.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was more cautious and suggested that the president did it He will now be exempt from such charges.
“Thus, a hypothetical president who admitted to ordering the assassination of a political opponent or critic, or who instigated a coup that unarguably failed, would have a good chance of obtaining immunity under the new majority model of presidential accountability,” Jackson wrote.
The decision comes after President Biden’s poor performance in Thursday’s debate and as Trump looks set to retake the White House in the 2024 election, with Trump at least demonstrating a penchant for pushing the limits of the law and presidential power.
The ruling could give President Trump a road map for misusing those powers, and the liberal justices are clearly afraid of what he might do with them.
“I oppose this because it puts our democracy at risk,” Sotomayor concluded.
4. The blow to panicked Democrats continues
The ruling capped a very bad five days for Democrats.
First, Biden’s terrible performance in Thursday’s debate. Then, on Friday, the Supreme Court handed down two rulings limiting the government’s ability to prosecute those accused of the Jan. 6 attacks, a major PR win for Trump and giving the right a long-overdue avenue to challenge federal agents.
At the very least, the ruling significantly complicates the government’s case against Trump and could empower him to exercise more extreme executive power in a second term.
Given that prospect, which Democrats fear so much, Monday’s ruling is likely to add more urgency to the party’s debate about how to proceed with the 2024 election and whether Biden is the right candidate to lead it.
