
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Trump v United States, preserving presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
The case guts the federal prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump for interference in the 2020 election.
The Ruling
In what analysts are calling one of the most significant rulings in American history, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “under our constitutional structure” a former president is entitled to absolute immunity for exercising his “core constitutional powers.”
In addition, a former president should enjoy “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution” for all other official acts.
The majority opinion based its ruling on the constitutional separation of powers and Article II, which vests the President with duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.”
The Case Against Trump
The case centered on the prosecution of Donald Trump by Attorney General Merrick Garland for the former president’s actions following the November 2020 election.
Garland appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith in November 2022 to investigate Trump’s role in “efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power” in 2020.
In doing so, the Biden Department of Justice brought “the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency,” Roberts noted.
The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of election results.
The ruling could also affect the outcome of a case in Fulton County, GA, in which District Attorney Fani Willis brought election interference charges against Trump.
Preserving the Presidency Itself
Attorney and president of the Judicial Network Carrie Campbell Severino noted:
The Court noted the threat to a President’s ability to do his job boldly if he were immediately faced with a bevy of lawsuits upon leaving office — something that until recently was almost unheard-of but may be part of the new normal in our current environment of lawfare and polarization.
The Supreme Court sided with Trump’s lawyers, who argued that after the November 2020 election, the former president acted in his official capacity as a president to challenge what he believed to be a rigged election.
What It Means for Future Presidents
Roberts emphasized that the ruling does not exempt any president from the rule of law:
But under our system of separated powers, the president may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
CatholicVote Vice President Joshua Mercer noted on the LOOPcast that while this particular case benefits former President Trump in the short-term, President Biden should also welcome the ruling:
This case protects all former presidents – not so they can get away with crimes, but so that they can execute their office with ‘energy’ and without fear that they’ll be smacked with years of lawfare after leaving office.
>> WATCH: LOOPcast’s Analysis <<
Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in full.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority but declined to support Part III-C of the Chief Justice’s Opinion, which deals specifically with how far a District Court might “suggest the jury probe official acts” of a former president.
‘Unhinged’ Dissent
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson were in the minority. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate criminal law…
She also listed a series of hypothetical situations she believes could arise under the ruling:
Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. … Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
She concluded on an ominous note: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
The majority opinion makes it clear that no president is above consequences for criminal action: “The President is not above the law.”
Lawmakers and commentators criticized Sotomayor for the tone and substance of her dissent. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, wrote: “The Supreme Court’s dissent in this case is foolish in every way, particularly Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson’s argument that this decision allows a president to assassinate their opponent.”
CatholicVote Director of Government Affairs Tom McClusky pointed out that the ruling upheld the constitutional mechanisms already in place for holding presidents accountable:
The people’s elected representatives in Congress have a duty to remove presidents, vice presidents, and their cabinet members for high crimes. Sotomayor’s unhinged dissent is not only hyperbolic but also harmful.
Article II, Section 4, reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino celebrated the ruling:
He added:
In response to the Left’s charge that SCOTUS is covering for Trump, note if Biden loses in Nov. he is now absolutely immune from prosecution by Trump for having unlawfully prosecuted Trump. It cuts both ways. That’s how the rule of law works and that’s what the court upheld today.
