By a six-to-three majority, conservative justices against progressives, the Court held that “the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts” but that he “is entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for his official acts.” Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts based this decision on “constant principles of separation of powers.”
The Court therefore sent the case back to the trial court to determine which acts are potentially immune from criminal prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate that they are not when they were committed in the exercise of its functions. Donald Trump welcomed a “historic decision”, assuring that it invalidated the majority of the charges in the four criminal proceedings against him.
In a televised address, Joe Biden denounced a decision that creates a “dangerous precedent”, because the powers of the president “will no longer be limited by law”. Through this jurisprudence, Donald Trump will be “emboldened to do what he wants, when he wants” in the event of victory in the presidential election in November, his Democratic opponent estimated.
“King above the law”
Beyond the case of Donald Trump, this decision “redefines the institution of the presidency” by transforming its holder into “a king above the law in every use of his official power”, wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent joined by her two progressive colleagues.
“When the president does it, it means it’s not illegal,” quips John Dean, White House counsel at the time of the Watergate scandal in 1974, citing then-President Richard Nixon’s line of defense. “Upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2024,” he concludes.
Steven Schwinn, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said: “To the extent that Donald Trump was trying to drag this out until after the election, he was completely successful.” The decision “will seriously hamper the prosecution of a former president because his official and unofficial actions are so often intertwined,” he said.
In the absence of a real trial before the vote, “there could be detailed hearings on the facts incriminated in the indictment to determine on which ones immunity applies, which will allow the population to be reminded of all of Trump’s actions and the events of January 6” 2021, nevertheless underlines the former federal prosecutor and professor of criminal law Randall Eliason. The entire procedure for this trial, initially scheduled to start on March 4, had already been suspended for four months.
“For posterity”
During the debates, while the justices were generally skeptical about the absolute immunity claimed by Donald Trump, several insisted on the long-term repercussions of their decision. “We are writing a rule for posterity,” observed the conservative Neil Gorsuch, referring to the unprecedented nature of the issue. Targeted by four criminal proceedings, Donald Trump is pulling out all the stops to be tried as late as possible, in any case after the presidential election.
Found guilty on May 30 by the New York courts of “aggravated false accounting to conceal a conspiracy to pervert the 2016 election,” he will be sentenced on July 11. But according to several American media outlets, Donald Trump’s lawyers sent a letter to the judge in this case on Monday, to reverse the conviction and postpone the sentencing in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. This first criminal conviction, unprecedented for a former American president, will in all likelihood be the only one before the vote.
