For ads-free news, click here.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Donald Trump in a 6-3 ruling, stating that presidents are entitled to limited immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions carried out during their time in office.
The summary of the decision:
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
The Court further decided that a president has the right to a pretrial immunity hearing, which can be escalated to the Supreme Court before the trial commences. As a result, any trial involving the ex-president will occur after the November 5, 2024, election.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion for the Court’s conservative majority, said:
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize 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. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the Court’s three liberals in dissent, writing:
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
The case will now be sent back for reconsideration, potentially leading to the dismissal of some or all charges against the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., related to the January 6 Capitol riot.
