SCOTUS: Trump Has Immunity, Not Absolute

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2024, that former President Donald Trump possesses some level of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. This landmark decision, reported by CNN, rejected his claim of absolute immunity for all actions taken while in office.

edition.cnn.com reported, The ruling sends Trump's federal election interference case back to lower courts, tasking them with determining which specific charges fall under this newly defined protection. Legal analysts, including those cited by The New York Times, anticipate this process will significantly delay the trial.

Trump had sought a sweeping shield from prosecution for any actions during his presidency, arguing it was essential for the office's functioning. His legal team consistently maintained this position throughout the appeals process, as detailed by Fox News.

edition.cnn.com noted, However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the concept of absolute immunity, stating it would undermine the rule of law and accountability for presidents. The majority opinion emphasized a critical balance between protecting the presidency and ensuring no one is above the law, according to The Wall Street Journal.

This decision means Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution in the Washington D.C. election interference case, which includes charges related to the January 6th Capitol attack, faces a complex review. The lower courts must now meticulously categorize Trump's alleged actions, Reuters reported.

edition.cnn.com reported, The ruling carries profound implications for future presidential accountability, establishing a precedent for how former presidents can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office. It sets a new legal framework for distinguishing between official duties and private conduct, as noted by The Associated Press.

• Historical Context of Presidential Immunity: Presidential immunity has historically focused on civil lawsuits, with the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald establishing civil immunity for official acts. Criminal immunity, however, has largely remained an untested legal frontier until this case, according to legal analysis from Politico, making this ruling a significant precedent.

• edition.cnn.com noted, The Court's Functional Test: The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision outlined a functional test for lower courts, requiring them to distinguish between a president's official acts and private conduct. This involves examining the nature of the alleged act, not merely the context, as detailed by SCOTUSblog in its review of the majority opinion.

• Implications for the Election Interference Case: The D.C. election interference case, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, alleges Trump engaged in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results. The lower courts must now apply the Supreme Court's new standard to each charge, determining if actions like pressuring state officials or challenging election results were official acts or private conduct, The Washington Post reported.

• edition.cnn.com reported, Delay and Political Ramifications: Legal experts widely agree that sending the case back to lower courts will cause substantial delays, potentially pushing any trial past the November 2024 presidential election. This outcome could allow Trump to avoid a trial before voters cast their ballots, a point highlighted by analysts on CNN.

• Dissenting Opinions and Concerns: The three liberal justices dissented, expressing concerns that the majority's ruling created a dangerous pathway for future presidents to evade accountability. Justice Sotomayor's dissent, as reported by NPR, warned that the decision could invite future presidential misconduct by making prosecution more difficult.

• edition.cnn.com noted, Reactions from Stakeholders: Former President Trump hailed the decision as a victory, reiterating his belief that presidents require absolute immunity to govern effectively. Special Counsel Jack Smith's office, meanwhile, stated it would continue to pursue the case in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidance, according to statements reported by NBC News.

• Future Legal Challenges and Appeals: The process of distinguishing official from private acts in the lower courts is expected to be contentious and could lead to further appeals. Both sides are likely to challenge rulings on specific charges, potentially prolonging the legal battle for months or even years, legal scholars told The New York Times.

• edition.cnn.com reported, Impact on Presidential Power and Accountability: This ruling reshapes the boundaries of presidential power, affirming that while presidents are not above the law, they do possess a degree of protection for their official duties. It seeks to balance the need for a functioning executive with the imperative of accountability, a complex legal tightrope, as explained by constitutional law experts on PBS NewsHour.