The US Supreme Court has ruled that a president, including former President Donald Trump“shall not be prosecuted for the exercise of his core constitutional powers and shall be entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
The Decision is “super nuanced”, as one legal scholar told The Conversation shortly after the choice was announced on July 1, 2024.
While a president enjoys total immunity within the exercise of his “central constitutional powers,” a sitting or former president also has “presumptive immunity” for all official acts. This immunity, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the bulk opinion, “extends to the outer scope of the President's official responsibilities and includes acts so long as they are not obviously or palpably outside his authority.”
“There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” the court ruled.
The results of the vote was 6-3, because the court’s three liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – Majority opinion within the event of a dissenting opinion.
“Today's decision to grant criminal immunity to former presidents transforms the institution of the presidency. It mocks the fundamental principle of our Constitution and our system of government that no one is above the law,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion.
The federal charges against Trump for his actions to overturn the 2020 presidential election will now be sent back to lower courts to come to a decision which of the federal charges against Trump could be pursued. But one end result is obvious – this decision could have significant implications for presidential power and the separation of powers in government.
Until all of the nuances of the choice are analyzed by constitutional lawyers, listed below are 4 stories to assist readers higher understand the arguments upfront of the choice and what was at stake on this case.
Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images
1. Laying the foundations
Trump claimed he was immune from federal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election because he was already president on the time.
“Trump’s argument focused on the claim … that a president cannot be legally prosecuted for his official conduct or actions taken in the exercise of his office,” wrote Claire B. Wofforda political scientist on the College of Charleston.
Since 1982, in a case dating back to Richard Nixon's presidency, presidents have been immune from civil suits due to their official actions, Wofford explained, and Trump sought to expand that immunity protection. But that was a tall order, Wofford wrote:
“Protecting the President from the inconveniences of civil litigation is one thing. Allowing the President, who is responsible under Article 2 of the Constitution for faithfully executing the laws, to break those laws with impunity is quite another.”
In fact, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in December 2023 that Trump didn’t have the “divine right of kings” to flee criminal responsibility. And a federal appeals court agreed with that call in February 2024. Trump appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
Read more: Trump was not a king and could be prosecuted for crimes committed during his presidency: Appeals court sets limits on immunity
2. An inconsistent claim
Trump's claim was an uphill battle. Stephanie Lindquista constitutional lawyer at Arizona State University, stated:
“In several lawsuits he filed throughout the 2020 election difficult the outcomes, Trump himself said he was acting 'in his personal capability as a candidate' and never in his official capability as president.
“Now, however, Trump is claiming that his comments on 'matters of public interest' were within the scope of his presidential duties, whether or not he was a candidate on January 6.”
This inconsistency, in addition to the final principle of the Constitution that nobody is above the law, made it difficult to argue Trump's position.
Read more: Trump claims the Constitution grants him immunity – here's why judges and Supreme Court may disagree
3. A choice that takes a protracted time to return
Wofforda constitutional law scholar on the College of Charleston, noted before the Supreme Court's decision in July that there was public concern in regards to the time it took the court to make a choice. But she said that this delay was within the service of democracy reasonably than a partisan maneuver:
“When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is inevitably answering a very difficult legal question. If the answers were clear, the case would never have been the subject of litigation before the Supreme Court.”
And the judges’ role in deciding the case is crucial for the nation, she wrote:
“Given the potentially unconstitutional actions Trump has threatened to take if re-elected, the country will need a strong and respected Supreme Court in the near future. Those angry at the court should actually be very happy that it is business as usual. If it were not, their fears that Trump will get away with anything may actually come true.”
Read more: Supreme Court's slow decision on Trump's immunity is the alternative of politics
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
4. What this implies for the longer term
Earlier this spring Wofford noted some worrying signs throughout the oral hearing before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2024:
“Several justices from all ideological camps expressed deep concern about the practical implications of granting or denying a president some degree of immunity.”
For example, Wofford noted:
“Justice Samuel Alito seemed genuinely concerned that the president might face political persecution if he were not protected by immunity. … On the other hand, … (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson) said a president could take office 'knowing that he could not expect punishment for committing crimes.'”
Wofford expected the justices would seek to grant either full immunity or no immunity in any respect – and subsequently allow Trump's federal case for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election to proceed, since lots of his actions were private and unofficial. Although that too posed a risk, Wofford wrote:
“I wish there were some other means by which the court could resolve this issue, and that so many people did not feel that the fate of our government and the stability of our system were at stake. … If the court does not make it clear and unambiguous that the president is not above the law, then I think we have a serious problem.”
Read more: Trump's Supreme Court immunity arguments highlight dangers — as prosecutors stress greater risk of waiving legal accountability
This story is a summary of articles from The Conversation archives.
image credit : theconversation.com