On Monday, the US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling dividing justices along ideological lines, declaring that former President Donald Trump is shielded from prosecution for official actions taken during his presidency, but not for private conduct, as reported by The Washington Post.
US Supreme Court on presidential immunity
In a landmark verdict, the Court ruled that former President Donald Trump had some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was serving in the White House, diminishing the chances for a trial before the November election. The historic 6-3 ruling recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution for the first time that would further impact the upcoming election.
As per the court, presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts and evidence related to presidents' official actions cannot be used to help prove criminal cases involving unofficial actions. Chief Justice John Roberts said former presidents have "absolute" immunity with respect to their "core constitutional powers" and "at least a presumptive immunity" for actions within the "outer perimeter of his official responsibility".
What is US Presidential immunity?
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., as cited by The Washington Post, underscored the necessity of presidential immunity to maintain an "energetic, independent executive," guarding against a scenario where each successive president could face prosecution by their successors, thereby hindering effective governance.
Supreme Court "official" versus "unofficial" acts
The majority opinion clarified that official presidential conduct encompasses all actions within the president's authority, unless they are "manifestly or palpably beyond" such authority. This includes Trump's efforts to influence the Justice Department following the 2020 election, but not necessarily interactions related to efforts to alter election results or communications with state officials.
What implications does the ruling on presidential immunity have for Donald Trump?
In dissent, liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan strongly opposed the ruling, arguing that it elevates the president above the law and undermines constitutional principles, foreseeing troubling implications for the presidency's integrity and accountability.
