Supreme Court Says Donald Trump Immune From Prosecution For Official Acts; “The President Is Now A King Above The Law,” Dissenting Justice Writes
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Donald Trump had immunity from prosecution for his official acts, dealing a blow to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election conspiracy case against the former president.
The 6-3 decision, with the court’s liberals dissenting, makes it all the more likely that Trump’s D.C. federal criminal case will be delayed until after the 2024 presidential election.
More from Deadline
What Joe Biden Needs To Do To Win Back Hollywood Donors & “Show People He’s Up To The Job”
Supreme Court Sends Social Media Cases Back To Lower Courts To Consider First Amendment Issues
“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “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.”
Last year, Trump was charged with four counts related to his efforts to remain in office after the 2020 election. He was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
Click to read the Trump immunity decision.
In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote that there was “at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an
immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”
Roberts raised the possibility of an exception if prosecutors “can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'”
The ruling essentially raises doubts about what charges Trump will face when he goes to trial and, for the ones that remain, the type of evidence Smith and his prosecution team will be able to bring before a jury.
Roberts wrote that Trump was “absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials,” as he sought ways to overturn the 2020 election results.
Roberts raised the prospect that even Trump’s tweets and his public statements on January 6th would “fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.”
“As the sole person charged by the Constitution with executing the laws of the United States, the President oversees —and thus will frequently speak publicly about — a vast array of activities that touch on nearly every aspect of American life,” Roberts wrote. “Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s ‘bully pulpit’ to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government — for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.”
“The exception may be cases where the president is acting as party leader or candidate for office. “To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of ‘content, form, and context’ will necessarily inform the inquiry,” Roberts wrote.
It will be up to the lower court, with U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan presiding, to make the initial determination of what are official acts in the case and what are not. But her decisions could then be challenged again by Trump’s legal team, adding further delay to the proceedings.
While the case focused on Trump’s conduct following the 2020 election, the justices were well aware during oral arguments that their decision would have far-reaching ramifications. They peppered attorneys for Trump and for the Justice Department with hypotheticals, to the point where many court watchers predicted that the former president would at least see a further delay in his criminal case.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, blasted the majority reasoning that the president has broad immunity for official acts.
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he will now be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
She added, “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
Trump heralded the ruling as a victory.
He wrote on his platform, Truth Social, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
He added, also in all caps, “THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS A MUCH MORE POWERFUL ONE THAN SOME HAD EXPECTED IT TO BE. IT IS BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE, AND CLEARS THE STENCH FROM THE BIDEN TRIALS AND HOAXES, ALL OF THEM, THAT HAVE BEEN USED AS AN UNFAIR ATTACK ON CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S POLITICAL OPPONENT, ME.”
Should Trump win the election and return to the White House, it’s likely that the January 6th case wouild disappear, while the Supreme Court majority gave reasoning for why the prosecution would at least be on hold. In a footnote, Roberts wrote that “in the criminal context, however, the Justice Department ‘has long recognized’ that ‘the separation of powers precludes the criminal prosecution of a sitting President.'”
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that “a seriously dangerous aspect of the ruling is its holding that official acts are inadmissible in trials for unofficial acts. With its delay, the Republican-appointed 6-3 Court gave the defendant a political gift.”
Republicans heralded the ruling, and called the dissents, and the claims that the ruling allows for the assassination of a political opponent, “foolish in every way,” in the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). In his majority opinion, Roberts wrote that “the immunity we have recognized extends to the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.'” Those are questions that now will be left to lower courts to decide.
But Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote on X/Twitter that “today’s ruling also undermines longstanding policies that protect DOJ’s investigations and prosecutions from partisan political interference.” He also said that it was “disgraceful” that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito did not recuse themselves from the case. Thomas’ wife Ginni was involved in post-election efforts to challenge the results; Alito’s wife Martha-Ann flew an upside down flag in January, 2021. That has been a symbol of those who denied the 2020 election results.
Best of Deadline
How To Watch The 'Minions' Movies In Order Ahead Of 'Despicable Me 4' Release
'A Family Affair' Soundtrack: All The Songs In The Netflix Film
Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
