The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Donald Trump’s sweeping claim of “absolute” immunity from criminal prosecution for unofficial acts but granted some protections for former presidents for official acts taken while in the White House.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
A view of the Supreme Court as the court hears arguments on the immunity of former President Donald Trump, April 25, 2024, in Washington.
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
“The President is not above the law,” the opinion read. “But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”
The ruling will affect whether Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The Supreme Court recently made a significant ruling on President Trump’s claim of immunity for both official and unofficial acts while in office. The decision, which was handed down in a 7-2 vote, has far-reaching implications for the powers and limitations of the presidency.
The case in question, Trump v. Vance, centered around a subpoena issued by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. for President Trump’s financial records as part of a criminal investigation. Trump’s legal team argued that the president is immune from criminal investigations while in office, regardless of whether the actions being investigated were official or unofficial.
In their ruling, the Supreme Court rejected this broad claim of immunity, stating that “no citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.” The court emphasized that the president is not immune from investigation or prosecution for his actions, and that he must comply with lawful subpoenas like any other citizen.
However, the court did leave open the possibility for the president to challenge specific subpoenas on other grounds, such as executive privilege or undue burden. This means that while President Trump cannot claim blanket immunity from investigation, he still has legal avenues to challenge specific requests for information.
The ruling has been hailed as a victory for the rule of law and the principle that no one is above it, not even the president. It reaffirms the idea that the president is subject to the same legal standards as any other citizen and must comply with lawful requests for information.
The decision also has implications for future presidents and their ability to shield themselves from investigation. By rejecting the notion of absolute immunity, the Supreme Court has set a precedent that could limit the power of the presidency and ensure greater accountability for those in office.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s immunity claim for official and unofficial acts is a significant step towards upholding the rule of law and ensuring that no one, not even the president, is above it. It marks a victory for accountability and transparency in government, and sets an important precedent for future administrations.
