The US Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, in Washington, DC.
DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images
The US Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, in Washington, DC.
DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images
The idea of presidential immunity — whether a sitting president is shielded from criminal prosecution — lies at the center of the Justice Department’s case against former President Donald Trump for his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court took up the issue in a ruling on Monday.
In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the court ruled the former president:
- Cannot be prosecuted for actions related to core powers granted by the Constitution, like issuing pardons and vetoing legislation
- Is entitled to a presumption of immunity for official acts
- Can be prosecuted for unofficial acts
What the decision does not address is whether Trump’s actions following the 2020 election count as core duties, official or unofficial.
“This is a significant short-term victory for Donald Trump,” says NPR National Justice Correspondent Carrie Johnson.
“The court majority has sent this back down to the district judge to determine action by action which counts and which does not. All of that is going to take time. And that means the prospect of a trial before the election is even more dim now than it was before.”
What this means to voters.
Voters have said they might change their minds on Trump if he was convicted in any of the four criminal cases against him. And Trump did lose a small amount of support after he was convicted in the case about hush money payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels.
“It has moved the polling at the margins a point or two, and that is very significant in a race that has been expected to be close,” says NPR political correspondent Domenico Montanaro.
But the court’s decision today touches on Trump’s election interference cases, which are the most significant conduct problems voters care about, Montanaro says.
Now that the Supreme Court has sent the case back to the lower court, it’s almost guaranteed Trump will not face trial on election interference charges. If Trump wins the presidency, he could order the Justice Department to throw out the charges, or he could pardon himself.
In all scenarios, it’s impossible we’ll get a verdict on whether Trump is criminally responsible for inciting an insurrection before November, which could help his campaign.
The Biden camp dismisses the significance of today’s ruling, saying in a statement, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts” of what happened on Jan. 6.
How this changes executive power.
Beyond the upcoming presidential election, today’s ruling will have sweeping consequences for presidential power, says University of Baltimore law professor Kim Wehle.
“It’s very hard to see what is still left of criminal liability and the rule of law for presidents moving forward,” Wehle says.
For actions that fall under the umbrella of presidential immunity, immunity doesn’t just mean dismissal of criminal charges, Wehle says, but also to the evidence presented in a case.
“That is, the jury cannot hear evidence that falls within the scope of immunity,” Wehle says. “So for example, the justices said for sure communications with the Department of Justice are absolutely immune. So I think [Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team] have to now go back and look at all the evidence that it gathered…and decide if you take the stuff off the table that the Supreme Court said is now immune, do we still have enough to go forward?”
Wehle also notes that, according to the ruling, motive is irrelevant in determining whether that action is official or unofficial conduct.
“Say I’m talking to my Justice Department to direct them to investigate a political rival, that would be a motive, versus I’m talking to my Justice Department to have them investigate terrorism, which would be within the scope I think regular people would think is legitimate.”
Wehle thinks this ruling will ultimately create a “chilling effect” in the future.
“Even if a president really does do something that shocks the conscience, prosecutors are going to have to say ‘hey, is this even worth bringing, even if we’re absolutely sure this is the kind of thing that should be prosecuted?’ because this immunity doctrine is so hard to overcome.”
This episode was produced by Marc Rivers and Tyler Bartlam. It was edited by Krishnadev Calamur, Dana Farrington and Adam Raney.
