Supreme Court Rules That Trump Had Partial Immunity As President, But Not For Unofficial Acts − 4 Essential Reads

(MENAFN- The Conversation) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a president, including former President Donald trump ,“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 his official acts.”

The decision is“super nuanced ,” as a law scholar explained to The Conversation shortly after the decision was announced on July 1, 2024.

While a president has total immunity for exercising“core constitutional powers,” a sitting or former president also has“presumptive immunity” for all official acts. That immunity, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion,“extends to the outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”

“There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” the court ruled.

The vote was 6-3, as the court's three liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – strongly disagreed with the majority opinion in a dissent.

“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,” Sotomayor wrote in the dissenting opinion.

The federal prosecution against Trump for his actions to overturn the 2020 presidential election will now go back to lower courts to determine which of the federal charges against Trump can proceed. One outcome, though, is clear – this decision will have a major impact on presidential power and the separation of powers in government.

Until all of the decision's nuances are parsed by constitutional law scholars, here are four stories to help readers better understand the arguments leading up to the decision and what was at stake with this case.

Trump claimed he is immune from federal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election because he was in office as president at the time.

“Trump's argument centered on a claim ... that a president cannot be subjected to legal action for official conduct or actions taken as part of the job,” wrote Claire B. Wofford , a political science scholar at the College of Charleston.

Since 1982, in a case dating back to Richard Nixon's presidency, presidents have been deemed immune from civil lawsuits based on their officials acts, Wofford explained, and Trump sought to expand that immunity protection. But it was a big ask, Wofford wrote:

Indeed, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in December 2023 that Trump did not have the“divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability.” And a federal appeals court agreed in February 2024. That's the ruling Trump appealed to the Supreme Court.

Read more: Trump was not king and can be prosecuted for crimes committed while president: Appeals court places limits on immunity

Trump's claim faced an uphill battle. Stefanie Lindquist , a scholar of constitutional law at Arizona State University, observed:

That inconsistency, as well as the general principle in the Constitution that no person could be above the law, made Trump's position a difficult one to argue.

Read more: Trump claims Constitution gives him immunity − here's why judges and the Supreme Court may not agree

Wofford , a constitutional law scholar at the College of Charleston, observed before the Supreme Court's July ruling that there was public concern about the time it took the court to reach a decision, but she said that delay was much more likely in service of democracy than it was a partisan play:

And the task the justices have in deciding the case is vital to the nation, she wrote:

Read more: Supreme Court's slow roll on deciding Trump's immunity is the opposite of politics

Earlier this spring, Wofford noted some disturbing portents during the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2024:

For instance, Wofford noted,

Wofford expected the justices would try to avoid granting either complete immunity or no immunity at all – and therefore allow Trump's federal trial for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election to continue based on the fact that many of his actions were private, not official. Though that held peril, too, Wofford wrote:

Read more: Trump's immunity arguments at Supreme Court highlight dangers − while prosecutors stress larger danger of removing legal accountability

This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation's archives.

MENAFN01072024000199003603ID1108395058