On July 1, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that presidents and former presidents have “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for actions within their exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. This ruling provided guidelines on which acts in former President Donald Trump’s federal election case can remain in the indictment, leaving much of the litigation to be handled by the district court.
The case, which has been on hold since December 2023, is not expected to go to trial before the November election but may see increased legal activity in the near future.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, with Justice Clarence Thomas providing a concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also concurred in part, expressing some legal disagreements with the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who also issued a separate dissent.
Trump Case Will Proceed
The Supreme Court has returned the case to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, where Judge Tanya Chutkan will need to determine whether certain actions by President Trump in the indictment were official or unofficial.
Despite the unique nature of the case and the significant constitutional questions it raises, the lower courts made rapid decisions, as stated in the opinion.
Both the district and circuit courts rejected claims of presidential immunity, leading to no discussion on whether the actions in the indictment were official or unofficial.
When Judge Chutkan denied the motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity last year, the appeals court expedited the appeal process, ultimately sending the case to the Supreme Court. All proceedings were halted, and Judge Chutkan had removed the case from her schedule. She still had several pending motions to address, including a key ruling on admissible evidence for the trial.
Now, Judge Chutkan must determine which actions need to be excluded from the indictment before the case can move forward. This process may take some time, as both the defense and prosecution have conflicting views on whether certain acts were official or unofficial.
Prosecutors have acknowledged that some actions in the indictment were official presidential acts. It is anticipated that special counsel Jack Smith may streamline the indictment to proceed with the case efficiently.
Supreme Court Provides Guidelines
The special counsel has charged former President Trump with four counts of conspiracy and obstruction related to his efforts to contest the 2020 election results.
Notably, the Supreme Court ruling does not dismiss any of these charges.
However, certain actions linked to the charges may need to be removed. The majority opinion established that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts. This immunity does not cover actions in areas where authority is shared with Congress, and unofficial acts during office do not receive immunity.
The court determined that President Trump’s discussions with the acting attorney general were core conduct subject to absolute immunity.
It also found that his conversations with the vice president regarding vote counting were part of his official duties, hence subject to presumptive immunity. Judge Chutkan must now assess if prosecuting these actions intrudes on executive branch authority, requiring prosecutors to challenge the presumption of immunity if necessary.
The court also instructed further fact-finding on Trump’s discussions with state officials and other parties to determine the official nature of these actions.
Regarding Trump’s speeches leading up to January 6, 2021, the court noted that some speech falls within official responsibilities, while other contexts may involve unofficial remarks.
The Supreme Court specified that courts should not delve into the president’s motives when determining whether an action was official or unofficial, as such inquiries could compromise the separation of powers by subjecting official conduct to judicial scrutiny.
The case was remanded to the district court for a careful analysis of the remaining allegations in the indictment, with a prohibition on using testimony or private records related to the president’s or his advisors’ official actions as trial evidence.
Court Rejects Impeachment Theory
Although the Supreme Court ruling may seem favorable to the former president (who declared it a “big win for our Constitution and democracy” on social media), the court dismissed his legal theory.
Trump’s attorneys argued that presidents must be impeached before facing prosecution for the same actions, and his Senate acquittal should prevent prosecution, justifying indictment dismissal.
However, the majority opinion relied on the framers’ views on the separation of powers, rejecting the impeachment argument as lacking constitutional basis.
Nonetheless, the court agreed that an independent Executive must exhibit bold and decisive actions without fear of repercussions.
Majority Stresses Strong Executive
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized in the majority opinion that the Constitution’s framers envisioned a robust executive branch. Unlike the other branches, the president represents a distinct government entity, vital for national security, good governance, and preserving liberty.
Prosecutors and dissenting judges argued that the criminal justice system inherently safeguards against wrongful prosecution of a president and associated chilling effects. However, the majority contended that the mere threat of prosecution could influence presidential decision-making, hampering government effectiveness.
The opinion highlighted the risks of hesitancy and undue caution in executing official duties under the shadow of potential prosecution, undermining the executive branch’s independence.
Four Justices Challenge Official Acts
All nine justices recognized immunity for a president’s exercise of core constitutional powers, but four justices criticized the majority’s broad test.
Justice Barrett and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson argued that there are instances where official acts could be unconstitutional or criminal, warranting prosecution.
Justice Barrett proposed a narrower immunity test, involving a two-step process to evaluate criminal charges for official acts. This includes determining the applicability of criminal statutes to the president and assessing potential encroachment on executive powers through prosecution.
Justice Sotomayor contended that the ruling granted the appellant more immunity than requested, without constitutional justification.
The dissenting opinion, joined by two justices, scrutinized Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, and other elements outlined in the indictment.
Justice Sotomayor raised concerns about the broad interpretation of “core immunity” shielding various non-core conduct from criminal prosecution, citing extreme scenarios like ordering political assassinations, staging coups, or accepting bribes for pardons.
Case Potential Return to Supreme Court
This case could face another appeal in the Supreme Court.
Trump’s legal team may challenge adverse district court rulings on the officiality of certain acts, and Judge Chutkan must rule on pending motions, including those seeking indictment dismissal.
Another complication arises in the Southern District of Florida, where a federal judge will decide on the constitutional appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith. If Smith lacks prosecutorial authority, an appeal could reach the Supreme Court, impacting both cases.
Ruling Impact on Georgia Election Case
In a similar case in Georgia, former President Trump and others face racketeering charges for contesting the 2020 election results. Some acts in the federal and state indictments overlap.
While the federal case excludes alleged co-conspirators, the state case involves former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark for actions he claims were official duties.
The Georgia Court of Appeals is reviewing the trial court’s decision not to disqualify the district attorney, which could affect the case outcome. If the appeals court maintains the district attorney’s eligibility, prosecutors must revise the indictment to remove official acts before proceeding.
