Trump has some immunity from prosecution, Supreme Court rules

The US Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump and other former presidents have partial immunity from criminal prosecution, marking a significant legal victory for the Republican White House candidate. The 6-3 decision did not completely dismiss the indictment accusing Trump of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, but it did remove key elements of the case against him. The justices determined that a president has immunity for 'official acts' but not for 'unofficial acts', and referred the matter back to a trial judge. The three liberal justices strongly dissented, expressing concerns for the future of democracy. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the president is now akin to a king above the law. This decision reduces the likelihood that Trump will face trial before the November presidential election, where he is set to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden. This is the first time in US history that the Supreme Court has declared former presidents can be shielded from criminal charges. Trump is the first president to be criminally prosecuted, as noted by Chief Justice John Roberts while delivering the court's opinion. Trump celebrated the ruling on his social media platform, Truth Social, calling it a major win for the constitution and democracy. In a heated phone call with the media, Biden's deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks expressed his frustration, stating that the court had handed Trump the keys to a dictatorship. He also pointed out that three of the justices were appointed by Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who filed the indictment, declined to comment. The Supreme Court's majority opinion overturned a lower court's decision that had rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity. The justices found that a president does enjoy absolute immunity for official conduct but can still be prosecuted for private acts. Justice Roberts wrote that a president's discussions with the Department of Justice are official acts of the presidency, making the president absolutely immune from prosecution for such interactions. The indictment alleges that Trump pressured the law enforcement agency to investigate unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud affecting the election result. Justice Roberts also wrote that a president's discussions with the vice president are official conduct, making Trump at least presumptively immune from allegations that he tried to pressure Mike Pence not to certify Biden's victory in the 2020 election. The indictment also accuses Trump of inciting the US Capitol riot, citing his tweets and remarks made outside the White House on January 6, 2021. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump's speech and social media activity on that day were all official acts. In another setback for the case, the justices ruled that Trump's private records and those of his advisors may not be admitted as evidence at trial. The opinion also raised questions about whether allegations that Trump pressured state officials to change their electoral votes to overturn his election defeat constituted unofficial acts, but ultimately left it to the lower court to decide. The opinion stated that the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment's charges without such conduct, raising doubts about the potential viability of the case once the official acts are stripped away. This ruling is a significant blow to Special Counsel Jack Smith's case. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued that the ruling would protect a president even if he or she ordered US special forces to assassinate a political rival, organized a military coup to hold on to power, or took bribes in exchange for conferring a pardon. Justice Jackson wrote in a separate dissent that the conservative majority's ruling breaks new and dangerous ground and would let down the guardrails of the law. However, Justice Roberts wrote that the tone of chilling doom from the dissenters was wholly disproportionate. His opinion stated that immunity extends to the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities, setting a higher bar for prosecution. This ruling is among the worst-case scenarios for the special counsel, according to Aziz Huq, a constitutional law expert at the University of Chicago. He noted that it will be important to see if Jack Smith can narrow the indictment by eliminating those facts that the Court has ranked as 'official'. Legal expert Mitchell Epner told the BBC that this is a major victory for Donald Trump. He said the trial judge will now have to decide which charges can move forward, and Trump will be able to appeal against her ruling all the way to the Supreme Court again.