In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that former U.S. presidents can be shielded from prosecution for at least some of what they do while in the Oval Office. The opinion found Trump is "absolutely immune" from prosecution for alleged conduct involving discussions with the Justice Department.
The immunity they recognized extends to the "outer perimeter" of the president's official responsibilities, setting what appears to be a high bar for determining what conduct could potentially be prosecuted.
"Joe Biden should be celebrating the presidential immunity decision. It makes it harder for him to be prosecuted as an accomplice to the fentanyl and human trafficking wreaking havoc at our southern border." |
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president's motives," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
Trump is also "at least presumptively immune" from allegations that he tried to pressure his Vice President, Mike Pence, to reject certification of the vote, Roberts wrote.
The case has now been remanded to the lower court to figure out precisely how to apply the decision to Trump's case.
'Official' vs. unofficial acts
Christian Adams is a former DOJ attorney who is founder and president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. He says the Supreme Court left the door open for prosecution of non-official acts.
"I think … the [lower] court will be asking the question: Did he do this as the president under the Constitution, or did he do this as a private person or a candidate?" Adams shares. "I think that's going to be the factual question that the lower court is going to have to decide based on the Supreme Court ruling – Did he do it as the president or not the president?"
Abraham Hamilton III, general counsel and public policy analyst for American Family Association, concurs.
"The court rightly ruled that the case has to be sent back down to the District Court for determination as to what are official acts and what are not official acts," Hamilton argues. "And I think when you read this case – together with the January 6th defendants' case – [it's clear] the Court is sending a clear message that the Department of Justice is out of line attempting to prosecute former President Trump or his efforts to protect the integrity of what he viewed as the electoral process while serving as the sitting president of the United States of America."
Impact on Smith's allegations?
Another question looms: How does this ruling affect the federal "election subversion" case brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith against the former president? Adams thinks it is unlikely Smith will be able to do anything if Trump is elected in November.
"Even if [Trump is] president-elect, this whole thing can't wind itself out before the inauguration [in January]," he explains. "If he wins the election, the federal charges are lights out; it's game over – … the federal charges are meaningless because he eventually can pardon himself or he'll be immune. [And] there's only a two- or three-month window as president-elect, so it's really not a concern. It's more if he wins the election, the federal charges are going to go away."
Similarly, Hamilton is convinced Smith's prosecution of Trump is effectively over.
"I think the Supreme Court decisions – both the immunity case as well as the January 6th defendants' case where the Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Justice wrongly applied a federal congressional provision – signal the end of the Department of Justice prosecution of former President Trump, particularly for issues related to January 6th."
Yesterday on "Life, Liberty & Levin" (on Fox News), former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo stated: "The Court has ripped the heart out of Jack Smith's charges against Donald Trump."
Editor's Note: The American Family Association is the parent organization of the American Family News Network, which operates AFN.net.
