Supreme Court rules Donald Trump has broad presidential immunity

Decision likely to have major consequences for many cases former president is facing

A split US Supreme Court ruled Monday that Trump can claim presidential immunity to avoid prosecution related to his conduct during the 2020 election . Reuters

A divided US Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former president Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity to avoid prosecution for many of his actions in seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Split 6-3 along partisan lines, the conservative-dominated court found that Trump cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken as president, but can for private acts. One liberal judge said the ruling effectively ensured that a president “is now a king above the law".

President Joe Biden said the ruling on presidential immunity set a "dangerous precedent" and called on the American people to "dissent" by rejecting Trump in November's election.

"Each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law. Not even the president of the United States," Mr Biden said.

He said the court's decision meant there were now virtually no limits on what a president could do.

"It's a dangerous precedent, because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law," Mr Biden said.

The ruling marked the first time since the nation's 18th-century founding that the Supreme Court has declared that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in any instance.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion.

“At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity.

The ruling however said that the court declined to say whether immunity “must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient”. The ruling ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of some of the allegations against Trump.

The case focuses on whether Trump is immune from prosecution for his role in the deadly January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.

The Supreme Court directed US District Judge Tanya Chutkan to assess whether core aspects of the indictment are official acts and therefore shielded from immunity or are not official acts and therefore potentially subject to prosecution.

The decision has extended the delay in the Washington criminal case, all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November 5 election.

Charges against Trump, already a convicted felon in a different case, include among other things his hectoring of Mike Pence – who was vice president at the time – not to certify the electoral votes, a core feature of the four-count indictment.

Mr Roberts also wrote that “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives … nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law”.

“Otherwise, presidents would be subject to trial on 'every allegation that an action was unlawful', depriving immunity of its intended effect,” he wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said: “The court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the nation’s history: whether a former president enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical and unjustifiable immunity that puts the president above the law.”

“In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” she wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in her own dissenting opinion: “The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world.

“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a “big win for our constitution and our democracy”.

“PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court in October, with Trump's legal team arguing that he was entitled to immunity against federal charges over his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election because he was president at the time.

Former presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts, which extends to after they leave office – and that the election interference indictment he faces should be dismissed, according to Trump's legal team.

They had asked the judge overseeing the case to toss out the indictment, arguing that prosecutors had charged Trump for advocating “election integrity” and that his actions were “at the heart of his official responsibilities as president”.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who brought criminal charges against Trump in Washington over his actions in the lead-up to the Capitol insurrection, which saw thousands of Trump loyalists gather as Congress met to certify Mr Biden’s win, has said only sitting presidents can claim immunity from prosecution.

Trump has also been hit with federal charges in Florida as well as state charges in Georgia. In late May, he was convicted in New York of falsifying business records connected to a hush-money scheme during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Donald Trump rails against New York criminal conviction – video

Social media ruling

In a somewhat related case, the court also kept a hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users, the Associated Press reported.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts in challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right.

At issue was whether the First Amendment protects the editorial discretion of the social media platforms and prohibits governments from forcing companies to publish content against their will.

The companies have said that without such discretion – including the ability to block or remove content or users, prioritise certain posts over others or include additional context – their websites would be overrun with spam, bullying, extremism and hate speech.

The cases are among several this term in which the justices are wrestling with standards for free speech in the digital age.

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now X, to cut then-president Trump off over his posts related to the US Capitol riot.