In a historic 6-3 decision, the justices declared for the first time that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for their official acts and no immunity for their unofficial acts. But instead of deciding for themselves, the justices ordered lower courts to figure out precisely how to apply that ruling to Trump’s case.
The outcome means additional delays before Trump can be tried in the case brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith.
The court’s decision in a second major case involving Trump this session, along with its ruling rejecting attempts to exclude him from the ballot because of his actions after the 2020 election, underscores the direct and potentially uncomfortable role that justices play in the November election.
The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all disagreed with the majority opinion.
TO SEE | Yves Boisvert returns to the Biden vs. Trump
In his dissent, Sotomayor wrote: “Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity redefines the institution of the presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, fundamental to our Constitution and our system of government, that no one is above the law.”
More details to follow…
