Supreme Court Rules Trump Retains Significant Immunity from Prosecution

Supreme Court Rules Trump Retains Significant Immunity from Prosecution

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that former U.S. presidents retain significant immunity from prosecution for acts taken while in office.

The vote was 6 to 3, divided along partisan lines. Three of the judges in the majority were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

This is a decision that could hamper efforts by special prosecutor Jack Smith to prosecute Trump for his alleged attempt to subvert the 2020 election.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

The New York Times reports, "Mr. Trump contended that he was entitled to absolute immunity from the charges, relying on a broad understanding of the separation of powers and a 1982 Supreme Court precedent that recognized such immunity in civil cases for actions taken by presidents within the “outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities. Lower courts rejected Mr. Trump’s claim, but the Supreme Court’s ruling may delay the case enough that Mr. Trump would be able to make it go away entirely if he prevails in November."

 

According to the Wall Street Journal:

The court previously has handed Trump victories in two separate cases stemming from his followers’ Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, where they sought to stop Congress from certifying President Biden’s victory.

On Friday, the court narrowed the scope of an obstruction charge federal prosecutors have filed against Jan. 6 rioters as well as Trump himself. The justices found that the offense was limited to interference with documents and other things required by an official proceeding—not obstructing an actual meeting of Congress. Lower courts will have to sort out the opinion’s impact on the Jan. 6 prosecutions.

That followed the court’s March decision restoring Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot, after that state’s highest court disqualified the Republican candidate under a constitutional provision that bars former officeholders who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from future office. The Supreme Court said that states lacked authority to enforce the Reconstruction-era clause against federal candidates.