Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution for certain actions he took as president in his fight to undermine the 2020 election, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, complicating efforts to bring Trump to trial in Washington on criminal charges that he committed fraud to remain in power.
The 6-3 ruling, which divided the court based on ideology, immediately put an end to some of the key allegations that special counsel Jack Smith had leveled against Trump, including the claim that he tried to use his Justice Department as weapon to fabricate or amplify false claims of voter fraud.
The opinion also leaves much unresolved, however, and sends the case back to the district court for further consideration. There, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan must now sort through the allegations to separate Trump’s official actions — those committed in his capacity as president — from his private actions while running for president. That process could delay the case for months and is likely to push any trial past Election Day.
The opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts declared that former presidents enjoy “absolute” immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their “core constitutional powers.”
“There is no immunity,” Roberts wrote, “for unofficial acts.”
One particular challenge for Chutkan: The Supreme Court’s opinion leaves considerable ambiguity about the scope of Trump’s immunity for acts related to his office but outside the powers specifically granted to the president under the Constitution. The Supreme Court majority said such acts may be immune, but did not provide a definitive answer to that question.
That nuance leaves open the question of whether Trump’s interactions with then-Vice President Mike Pence in the run-up to January 6, 2021 count as “official” — and therefore immune — actions, or whether they can remain part of the criminal case against Trump. The Supreme Court also left it to Chutkan to make a similar ruling on Trump’s efforts to pressure state officials to overturn the certified results of their elections.
The ruling was further evidence of a bitterly divided court, with the three liberal justices criticizing the outcome in a scathing dissent as “wholly indefensible.”
“This majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the presidency and for our democracy,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
