- The Supreme Court gave former President Donald Trump a partial victory on Monday.
- A majority of the high court decided that former presidents do hold some immunity.
The Supreme Court on Monday handed former President Donald Trump a partial victory by kicking the future of his criminal case related to January 6, 2021, down to a lower court.
Justices rejected Trump's claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal charges related to actions that come under the scope of the presidency. But in a 6-3 vote, most of the high court decided that former presidents hold some immunity. In fact, commentators said that in some key parts, the ruling favored Trump's side more than expected.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that in some circumstances, presidents must know that they have immunity from criminal prosecution; otherwise, their ability to do their job could be affected.
"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," Roberts wrote for the majority. "At least with respect to the President's exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute."
According to the ruling, the line will be drawn at whether a president's conduct is related to official acts. Before Monday's ruling, former presidents already held sweeping immunity from civil prosecution thanks to a Nixon-era case. The question before the high court was what to do now that Trump is the first former president to face criminal indictments.
The court's decision gives presidents the benefit of the doubt in some areas. Roberts wrote that when deciding whether an act was official or unofficial, courts may not inquire into the president's motives.
Roberts added that judges could not find that a president's action was unofficial "merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
The extent of what is allowed under the ruling is the subject of fierce debate among the justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a stinging dissent that was joined by the other liberal justices, said that a president could order US forces to kill a rival and get away with it.
"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," Sotomayor wrote. "Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
The court kicked the future of Trump's January 6-related indictment to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now decide how the court's landmark ruling will affect the special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Roberts and the court did make clear that some areas of the indictment could not survive.
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials," he wrote.
Trump's communications with the Justice Department have been a key part of the prosecutions against him after the 2020 election since the then-president sought to install a loyalist, Jeffrey Clark, as acting attorney general. Clark was supportive of Trump's unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud.
It's not immediately clear how quickly Chutkan will move, but it seems unlikely that the former president will face trial before the November election. In taking their time to craft this ruling, justices have essentially handed Trump another victory for his delay tactics.
It's likely that Trump's Manhattan criminal trial will now be his only trial before the election. If he wins the election, he'll likely scuttle the January 6 case and Smith's other criminal case in Florida, related to Trump's hoarding of classified documents.
The ruling largely falls on the lines that appeared present during oral arguments. Conservative justices, including the Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, said that the case before them was of far more importance than just the facts of what the former president was accused of doing after the 2020 election.
"We are writing a rule for the ages," Gorsuch said.
At the time, more-liberal justices recoiled at the thought of permanently placing the presidency above the law.
"The most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during oral arguments. "I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."
The court's ruling came after Justice Samuel Alito refused to recuse himself from the case. Democratic lawmakers had pressed Alito to step aside after The New York Times reported that a flag had been flown upside down at Alito's Virginia home following the 2020 election, an established sign of distress that at the time was viewed as a symbol of solidarity with Trump's false claims that the election was stolen. Alito has said Martha-Ann Alito, his wife, decided to fly the flag upside down. In a letter to lawmakers, Alito said the flag was not intended to show support for the "Stop the Steal" movement.