In a landmark 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts taken while in office, dealing a major blow to the federal case against Donald Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that presidents have absolute immunity for actions within their “core constitutional powers” and at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts. The Court remanded the case to lower courts to determine which of Trump’s alleged actions related to January 6th qualify as official acts covered by this immunity.
“The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Roberts wrote. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
The ruling throws into doubt Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump on charges including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding. Lower courts will now have to parse which of Trump’s alleged actions were taken in an official capacity.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued the majority’s ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Sotomayor wrote. “From this day forward, Presidents of tomorrow will be free to exercise the Commander-in-Chief powers, the foreign-affairs powers, and all the vast law enforcement powers enshrined in Article II however they please—including in ways that Congress has deemed criminal.”
The decision marks a significant victory for Trump as he seeks to fend off multiple criminal prosecutions while campaigning for president. His lawyers praised the ruling as a vindication of executive power, while prosecutors said they would continue to pursue charges related to Trump’s non-official acts.
Legal experts say the ruling creates a complex new framework that will likely lead to years of litigation over the scope of presidential immunity. Critics warn it risks emboldening future presidents to break the law, while supporters argue it’s necessary to protect executive decision-making.
The case now returns to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. How broadly or narrowly judges interpret the ruling’s immunity standards could have major implications for the fate of the charges against Trump.
