WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday raised the bar for prosecuting Donald Trump, ruling that he had immunity for some of his actions as president in his federal election interference case, but perhaps not for others. other actions, adding another obstacle for special prosecutor Jack Smith who wants to take the case to court.
In a new and potentially far-reaching case over the limits of presidential power, the justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to reject Trump’s broad claim of immunity, meaning that charges related to his attempts to overturning the 2020 election results will not be dismissed, but said certain actions closely related to his primary duties as president are prohibited for prosecutors.
“A great victory for our Constitution and our democracy. Proud to be an American,” Trump said in an all-caps message on his social media site Truth Social.
Trump’s Republican allies welcomed the decision while Democrats strongly condemned it, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., saying it “allows the former president to weaken our democracy by breaking the law.”“
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said additional procedures were needed in lower courts to determine what conduct Trump can be prosecuted for. Among the conduct that the court determined to fall within basic presidential powers and therefore subject to immunity were Trump’s contacts with Justice Department officials. Trump is also “presumably immune” from prosecution for his contacts with Vice President Mike Pence in the weeks before his supporters attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, Roberts wrote.
The indictment alleged that Trump sought to pressure the Justice Department into investigating unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud as part of a plan to keep him in power despite the election victory of President Joe Biden. Trump also wanted Pence to refuse to certify the election results as part of his ceremonial role during the joint session of Congress on January 6.
“The president is not above the law,” Roberts wrote. “But Congress cannot criminalize the conduct of the President in exercising the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution. »
Follow live updates on the Supreme Court decision
What this means for the case’s future remains to be seen. Trump’s lawyer conceded during closing arguments in April that at least some of the allegations in the indictment involve private conduct that would not be protected by an immunity defense. Similarly, the Justice Department lawyer arguing the case for the special counsel said the prosecution could proceed even if some official acts were protected.
At a minimum, District Judge Tanya Chutkan will consider further proceedings to determine whether the other conduct alleged in the indictment is protected. Among the acts she will review to determine whether they are covered by immunity are Trump’s contacts with people outside the federal government, including state election officials like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, that Trump pushed to reject the results showing Biden’s victory.
Prosecutors will also have a chance to rebut the notion that Trump’s contacts with Pence are protected. That decision will depend on whether prosecuting Trump for those actions “would present a danger of intrusion upon the authority and functions of the executive branch,” Roberts wrote.
Of contacts with state election officials, Roberts wrote that the president has “broad powers to speak on matters of public concern,” including the conduct of elections. On the other hand, the president “plays no role” in the certification of elections by the states, he added. Chutkan must conduct a “thorough analysis” of the indictment to determine whether Trump’s actions are protected, Roberts said.
In a further blow to Smith, the court ruled that none of the conduct for which Trump is immune can be admitted as evidence at trial in any form.
The court’s three liberal justices vigorously dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that the decision “makes a mockery of the fundamental principle of our Constitution and our system of government that no man is above the law.”
The Constitution, she added, “does not prevent a former president from being held accountable for criminal acts and treason.”
She warned that the decision could have far-reaching consequences by shielding presidents from a wide range of actions.
“Let the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil purposes,” Sotomayor wrote. “Because if he knew he might one day be held accountable for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like. That’s the message from the majority today. “
In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the decision as a “five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance.”
Even if the new procedure does not take long, there is little chance that the trial will end before Election Day. It had previously been suggested that a trial would not begin until at least three months after the Supreme Court decision, which would mean it would potentially not begin until early October at the earliest. The trial itself could last up to 12 weeks.
The case has put the Supreme Court in the spotlight, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump. The court gave Trump an election-year boost when it ruled in March that Colorado could not exclude him from the ballot.
The justices were also criticized for their delay in considering Trump’s appeal, which some see in itself as a victory for him because it meant the trial could not take place in March as originally planned.
Legally speaking, this is an unprecedented case, since no president has ever been prosecuted after leaving office. Therefore, the court was grappling with a legal question that had never been before it: whether a president enjoys some form of immunity for his essential functions, derived from the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which delineates the powers of the presidency compared to others. branches of government.
The legal argument has focused on Trump’s official actions, with both sides agreeing that a former president does not enjoy immunity for his personal conduct.
The Supreme Court intervened after a federal appeals court ruled Feb. 6 that Trump was not immune from lawsuits, saying that once he left office he became ” citizen Trump” and should be treated like any other criminal defendant. The Justice Department has long maintained that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.
The appeals court did not analyze which, if any, of the conduct alleged in the indictment could be considered an official act, a fact that appeared to irritate some judges during oral arguments.
Trump’s lawyers pointed to a 1982 Supreme Court decision that upheld presidential immunity from civil lawsuits when the underlying conduct involves actions within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities.
Smith’s team argued that there is no blanket immunity preventing former presidents from being prosecuted for criminal acts committed while in office.
The federal indictment returned by a grand jury in Washington in August included four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempted obstruction of due process, and conspiracy against rights, particularly the right to vote.
In another case related to Jan. 6, the court on Friday narrowed the scope of the law criminalizing obstruction of an official proceeding. Trump also faces that charge, but legal experts say Friday’s decision may not affect his case.
Trump, according to the indictment, conspired to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by knowingly using false claims of election fraud to obstruct the government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.” .
The indictment focuses on Trump’s involvement in a scheme to submit false electoral certificates to Congress in the hopes that they would overturn President Joe Biden’s victory. The chain of events culminated in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.
Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, said he was simply expressing concerns, which were not based on any evidence, that the election was tainted by widespread fraud. This is one of four criminal charges Trump is currently fighting.
