Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for ‘official acts,’ returns case to lower courts

The lower courts now determine whether Trump’s acts were official or unofficial.

By The Washington Free Beacon and Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a lower court decision that had rejected Donald Trump’s bid to shield himself from federal criminal charges.

The court ruled that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for “official acts” within their constitutional authority, as opposed to a private capacity.

The decision came in Trump’s appeal of a lower court ruling rejecting his immunity claim.

The court decided the blockbuster case on the last day of its term. The case returns to the lower courts, which now must determine whether Trump’s acts were official or unofficial.

Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 election in a rematch from four years ago.

The decision makes it unlikely that any trial on these charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith could be completed before the election.

During April 25 arguments in the case, Trump’s legal team urged the justices to fully shield former presidents from criminal charges—”absolute immunity”—for official acts taken in office.

Without immunity, Trump’s lawyer said, sitting presidents would face “blackmail and extortion” by political rivals due to the threat of future prosecution.

The court’s 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices Trump appointed. Smith’s election subversion charges embody one of the four criminal cases Trump has faced.

Trump, 78, is the first former U.S. president to be criminally prosecuted as well as the first former president convicted of a crime.

In the special counsel’s August 2023 indictment, Trump was charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, corruptly obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to do so, and conspiring against the right of Americans to vote.

He has pleaded not guilty.

Trump’s trial had been scheduled to start on March 4 before the delays over the immunity issue.

Now, no trial date is set. Trump made his immunity claim to the trial judge in October, meaning the issue has been litigated for about nine months.

A lawyer for the special counsel’s office told the Supreme Court during arguments that the “absolute immunity” sought by Trump would shield presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, as in this case, trying to overturn the proper results of an election and stay in power.

During the arguments, justices asked hypothetical questions involving a president selling nuclear secrets, taking a bribe or ordering a coup or political assassination.

If such actions were official conduct, Trump’s lawyer argued, a former president could be charged only if first impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted in the Senate—something that has never happened in U.S. history.

In a May Reuters/Ipsos poll, just 27 percent of respondents—9 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of independents—agreed that presidents should be immune from prosecution unless they have first been impeached and convicted by Congress.

A Plodding Timeline

Smith, seeking to avoid trial delays, had asked the justices in December to perform a fast-track review after Trump’s immunity claim was rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that month.

Trump opposed the bid. Rather than resolve the matter promptly, the justices denied Smith’s request and let the case proceed in a lower court, which upheld Chutkan’s ruling against Trump on Feb. 6.

The immunity ruling comes 20 weeks after Trump on Feb. 12 sought relief from the Supreme Court.

By contrast, it took the court less than nine weeks in another major case to reinstate Trump to the presidential primary ballot in Colorado after he appealed a lower court’s ruling that had disqualified him for engaging in an insurrection by inciting and supporting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

The timeline of the court’s immunity ruling likely does not leave enough time for Smith to try Trump on federal election subversion charges and for a jury to reach a verdict before voters head to the polls.

Federal prosecutors have accused Trump of pressuring government officials to overturn the election results and encouraging his supporters to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to push Congress not to certify Biden’s victory, based on false claims of widespread voting fraud.

Trump supporters attacked police and stormed the Capitol, sending lawmakers and others fleeing. Trump and his allies also are accused of devising a plan to use false electors from key states to thwart certification.

Trump also faces election subversion charges in state court in Georgia and federal charges in Florida brought by Smith relating to keeping classified documents after leaving office.

If Trump regains the presidency, he could try to force an end to the prosecution or potentially pardon himself for any federal crimes.

Donald Trumppolitical immunityUS Supreme Court