Supreme Court sends Trump immunity case back to lower court
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has decided it will not fully rule on former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from federal prosecution and will instead send the case back to a lower court for further evaluation.
In a 6-3 opinion released Monday, the court ruled that Trump – and all presidents – enjoy immunity for official acts of the presidency, but they also noted that unofficial acts have no immunity.
The justices directed trial U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which allegations in Trump’s indictment constitute official acts and must therefore be stricken from the case — and which do not.
What the Supreme Court opinion said
"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. 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. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
What the Supreme Court dissent said
"Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law," Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered in her dissent, joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
"Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent," Sotomayor continued, omitting the traditionally used word "respectfully" from the final line of her summary.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson were all nominated by Democratic presidents, while the justices on the majority opinion – Roberts, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas – were nominated by Republicans; three by Trump himself.
On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump called the ruling a "big win" for the Constitution and democracy.
The Republican ex-president is seeking to avoid prosecution for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, one of four criminal cases he is facing.
President Joe Biden’s campaign said in a statement that the immunity ruling "doesn’t change the facts" about the events of Jan. 6.
The case was widely watched for its potentially significant impact on not just the upcoming election, but the scope of presidential powers going forward.
"We’re writing a rule for the ages," Justice Gorsuch said during oral arguments for the case in April.
PREVIOUS: Trump's immunity case: Supreme Court appears skeptical of former president's defense
What is Trump charged with?
File: Former President Donald Trump in Manhattan criminal court, on Thursday, May 30, 2024, the day he was convicted. (Justin Lane/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The former president was charged in August 2023 by Special Counsel Jack Smith with conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss to President Joe Biden in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
His charges include four counts: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to prevent others from carrying out their constitutional rights.
Trump had made a bid to dismiss the case, and others, saying his former presidential status grants him absolute immunity from prosecution.
What if Trump is re-elected?
Timing is crucial in Trump’s immunity case.
The former president and his lawyers have sought to push back the trial until after the election, when – if Trump were to regain the presidency – he could order the Justice Department to drop the case or even attempt to pardon himself.
Prosecutors had been pressing for a quick decision from the Supreme Court so that the clock could restart on trial preparations.
What's next?
According to Reuters, Judge Chutkan has previously promised to give Trump and his attorneys about 90 days to prepare for trial once the case returns to her courtroom. That could leave room for a pre-election verdict, according to attorney Seth Berenzweig, who is not involved in the case.
"Let's just take Judge Chutkan at her word," Berenzweig told LiveNOW from FOX after the ruling. "She said we're going to need 80 to 90 days after this case comes back, if and when it does, to be able to start the trial. So today is the beginning of July – July, August, September. So I think that we're looking at a trial, if it starts right after Labor Day in September and if the trial goes two months, you're going to have a run in September and October. You can have a jury verdict in October.
"So it is not definite but it is absolutely possible. It just depends on Judge Chutkan. So now you have the fate and the weight of this historic moment going back to a federal U.S. district court judge here in Washington DC and what she does next is going to be under the microscope."
Trump’s other criminal cases
Criminal case 1: Hush-money
Where: New York
Charges: Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records, a felony punishable by up to four years in prison.
About the case: The indictment centered on allegations that Trump falsified internal records kept by his company to hide the true nature of payments made to his then-personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen. Cohen helped cover up Trump’s extramarital affairs with porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump’s company, Trump Organization, then reimbursed Cohen and paid him bonuses and extra payments which were falsely logged as legal expenses in company records, according to prosecutors.
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to tax evasion, campaign finance charges and lying to Congress, saying Trump directed him to arrange the payments of hush money. He served more than a year in prison.
Case status: A sentencing hearing is set for July 11.
Criminal case 2: State election interference
Where: Georgia
Charges: Trump and 18 others are charged under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO. Trump also is charged with nine other criminal counts, including filing false documents, false statements and writings, and assorted conspiracy charges. The RICO charge alone carries a penalty of five to 20 years in prison.
About the case: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has charged Trump and 18 others with participating in a scheme to illegally try to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. The alleged scheme included several acts, including Trump’s infamous phone call in January 2021 to Georgia’s secretary of state, trying to replace Georgia’s Democratic presidential electors with ones who would vote for him, harassment of an election worker and copying data and software from election equipment without permission.
Case status: Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has not set a trial date.
RELATED: Will hush-money guilty verdict impact Georgia case?
Criminal Case 3: Classified documents
Where: Florida
Charges: Trump faces 40 felony counts related to both the possession of the documents, including crimes under the Espionage Act, and the alleged obstruction. The charges include willful retention of national defense information; conspiracy to obstruct justice; false statements and representations; and other counts. Each of the more than 30 willful retention counts carry a maximum 10-year sentence.
About the case: Trump was once again charged by special counsel Jack Smith with illegally retaining classified documents he had taken from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office.
Case status: The trial was scheduled to start May 20, 2024 but the judge has postponed it for, among other reasons, the New York case and the pending Supreme Court ruling.
This story was reported from Los Angeles. The Associated Press contributed.