Current News

/

ArcaMax

The US Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, explained -- and what it means for when Trump could stand trial

Jeremy Roebuck, The Philadelphia Inquirer on

Published in News & Features

In writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the justices were less concerned with the charges Trump is facing in this moment than they were with the impact their decision would have on the office of the presidency.

In his opinion, Roberts stressed the importance of safeguarding “an energetic, independent executive” and ruled that courts should afford presidents at least the presumption of immunity for all official acts they take while in office.

“The president therefore 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,” Roberts wrote. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy or party.”

Private conduct, however, is another matter, Roberts said. For instance, criminal actions a president might take while acting as a candidate for reelection could warrant criminal charges, under the court’s reasoning.

What does the ruling mean for Trump’s case?

The justices largely stopped short of deciding whether the charges lodged against Trump can move forward. Instead, they sent the case back to a lower court to determine how much of the conduct detailed in the indictment falls into the category of officials acts of the presidency vs. how much should be considered private actions by Trump while he held the office.

 

Roberts was clear, however, on one element of the indictment: Trump is immune from charges stemming from what the prosecutors have described as his push to squeeze Justice Department officials to back up his false claims of widespread voter fraud in 2020.

Because one of the duties of presidency is overseeing the Justice Department, Roberts reasoned, any actions Trump took to do so — no matter how wrong they may appear in hindsight — should be shielded from prosecution.

As for the indictment’s other allegations against Trump, Roberts said more fact-finding is needed.

He instructed the judge presiding over the case to determine whether the two other central planks of the indictment — Trump’s efforts to organize false slates of presidential electors in battleground states and to pressure Pence and lawmakers in key battleground states to assist him in undermining public confidence in the results — came as part of Trump’s exercising his official duties as president or if they were acts undertaken solely in his private role as a presidential candidate.

...continued

swipe to next page

©2024 The Philadelphia Inquirer. Visit inquirer.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus