Supreme Court says Trump partially shielded from prosecution

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to some immunity from prosecution, a decision that could effectively delay his trial on charges of conspiracy to undermine the 2020 election.

The vote was 6 to 3, divided along partisan lines.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Trump had immunity for his official acts.

“The President is not above the law,” the chief justice wrote. “But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution. And the system of separate powers designed by the Founders has always required a vigorous, independent executive branch. The President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts.”

Judge Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent that the decision was seriously misguided.

“Today’s decision to grant criminal immunity to former presidents reforms the institution of the presidency,” she wrote. “It parodies the principle, fundamental to our Constitution and our system of government, that no one is above the law.”

The justices noted that there is an important distinction between official and private conduct and sent the case back to the lower courts for additional analysis.

It was not immediately clear how much delay that would entail, but the prospects of a trial before the election appear increasingly unlikely. If Trump wins at the ballot box, he could order the Justice Department to drop the charges.

Mr. Trump asserted that he is entitled to absolute immunity from the charges, relying on a broad view of the separation of powers and a 1982 Supreme Court precedent which recognized such immunity in civil suits for actions taken by presidents within the “outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities.

Lower courts have rejected this claim.

‘Whatever immunity a sitting president may enjoy,’ Judge rules Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington wrote: “The United States has only one president at a time, and that position does not grant a lifetime ‘get out of jail free’ ticket.”

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. “For purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump has become a citizen Trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote in an unsigned decision. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he was president no longer protects him from this prosecution.”

In agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court said it would answer this question: “Whether and, if so, to what extent a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to have involved official acts during his term of office.”

The court heard two other cases this semester related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

In March, the court unanimously rejected an effort to ban Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which makes people who engage in insurrection ineligible to hold office. The court, without addressing whether Trump fell under the provision, ruled that states cannot use it to exclude presidential candidates from the ballot.

On Friday, the court ruled that federal prosecutors improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Two of the four charges against Mr. Trump are based on that law.

The court quickly decided the case and put Mr. Trump back on the ballot. The arguments were heard a month after they agreed to hear the vote and a decision came a month later.

The immunity case has moved considerably slower. In December, when Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the prosecution, asked the justices to skip the appeals court and hear the case immediately, he wrote that “it is in compelling public interest that the claims of the respondent on immunity will be resolved by this court,” adding that “only this court can finally resolve them.”

The justices dismissed Mr. Smith’s petition 11 days after he filed it, in a summary order without dissent.

After the appeals court ruled against Mr. Trump, he asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Sixteen days later, on February 28, the court agreed to hear his appeal, with oral arguments scheduled almost two months later, on the last day of the term. Another two months have passed since then.

During the argument, several conservative justices seemed disinclined to examine the specifics of the charges against Trump. Instead, they said, the court should issue a ruling that applies to presidential power more broadly.

“We are writing a rule for the ages,” said Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.