By Jack Queen
(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for his official actions as the president casts doubt on a key criminal case against him and virtually guarantees he will not stand trial before the November 5 election.
Here are some conclusions from the decision:
PRESIDENTS HAVE A CERTAIN IMMUNITY
In a 6-3 ruling, with conservatives in the majority and liberals arguing otherwise, the Supreme Court held that former presidents are fully immune from prosecution for actions within their constitutional powers as president, but not for private acts.
The trial judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, must now determine whether certain acts alleged in the indictment are official or not. The process could take months.
The ruling overturned a court decision that rejected Trump’s claim of immunity from federal criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. Joe Biden.
The court appeared to define official acts broadly, saying that presidents cannot effectively perform their duties with the threat of potential prosecution hanging over every decision. A former president has “at least a presumptive immunity” for “acts within the outermost perimeter of his official responsibility,” the court wrote.
The court’s three liberals disagreed, saying the ruling gives presidents free rein to break the law if their actions can be disguised as official duties.
PRE-ELECTION PROCESS VERY UNLIKELY
The ruling significantly reduces the chances that a jury will decide whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of the election-torn charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith before the Nov. 5 election, when he will face Biden again.
The ruling suggests that part of the special counsel’s case will be dismissed. That includes anything stemming from Trump’s conversation with Justice Department officials about investigating possible voter fraud, which the ruling said were official actions for which he cannot be prosecuted. Trump has made false claims about widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
PROSECUTORS FACE NEW OBSTACLES
The ruling is a major blow to prosecutors, who now have the burden of proving that Trump’s actions were not official acts. That could take months of evidentiary hearings and court rulings that could further narrow the case.
The ruling also limits the evidence prosecutors can use to charge Trump with actions that were clearly not official. Under the ruling, any evidence related to official actions for which Trump is immune cannot be used as evidence of another crime.
LIBERAL JUDGES ‘FEAR OF OUR DEMOCRACY’
The court’s three liberal justices said the ruling gives presidents permission to use their official powers to break the law for any purpose.
In a written dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor held that under the interpretation in the ruling, a president cannot be prosecuted for organizing a military coup, accepting bribes or even ordering the assassination of a political rival.
“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. … Out of fear for our democracy, I disagree,” Sotomayor said.
(Reporting by Jack Queen; Editing by Will Dunham and Noeleen Walder)
