The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the President of the United States possesses “absolute immunity” for actions taken in the performance of core constitutional duties.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices differentiated between “official” and “unofficial” presidential actions, granting comprehensive immunity for the former while explicitly denying it for the latter.
The court explained that while immunity is crucial for official acts to prevent undue influence on presidential decision-making, it does not apply to the president’s personal conduct.
The decision arrives amidst Trump’s attempts to challenge the criminal charges against him, including his alleged role in the January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol.
The ruling particularly addresses the charges brought against Trump for his involvement in the January 6 Capitol riots, stating that his encouragement for peaceful protest does not necessarily grant him immunity for other actions on that day.
The Supreme Court clarified that discussions between the President and the Vice President regarding official responsibilities are considered official acts, suggesting at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for these interactions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion, pointed out that the case was expedited and thus did not thoroughly distinguish between the President’s official and unofficial actions. However, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts with new guidelines for determining the nature of the President’s actions.
“Certain allegations – such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General – are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations – such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public – present more difficult questions,” wrote Roberts.
Justices Kentaji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor presented dissenting opinions, expressing concerns over the potential damage to American institutions and the rule of law, highlighting that the court’s decision could lead to a “rule of judges” where courts decide which presidential crimes are permissible.
Trump praised the ruling on his Truth Social platform. “THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS A MUCH MORE POWERFUL ONE THAN SOME HAD EXPECTED IT TO BE. IT IS BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE, AND CLEARS THE STENCH FROM THE BIDEN TRIALS AND HOAXES, ALL OF THEM, THAT HAVE BEEN USED AS AN UNFAIR ATTACK ON CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S POLITICAL OPPONENT, ME. MANY OF THESE FAKE CASES WILL NOW DISAPPEAR, OR WITHER INTO OBSCURITY. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump’s legal team has moved to overturn his conviction in the Manhattan hush money case, arguing that the ruling should also apply to charges unrelated to the January 6 indictments.
Trump’s lawyers contend that the evidence used against him was collected during his presidency, thereby falling under the umbrella of actions taken during his official capacity.
It is uncertain whether Judge Juan Merchan will consider the motion. Since the deadline for post-trial motions has already passed, he might instruct Trump’s lawyers to address their concerns during the appeals process, following sentencing.