Trump won a significant victory this week when the US Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, in Trump v. United States that presidents enjoy “total immunity” from criminal prosecution for official activities.

“The essence of presidential power gives a former president absolute protection from criminal prosecution for activities within his preclusive constitutional authority under our constitutional framework of separate authorities. Chief Justice Roberts’ decision affirms his entitlement to at least presumptive immunity from any prosecution for all his official activities. “Unofficial acts are not immune from consequences.”

“No court has thus far explored how” to distinguish between official and unauthorized activities, the court further stated.

The lower courts made their rulings in a very timely manner, in spite of the case’s unique circumstances and the important constitutional issues it presents. The courts in question did not perform an analysis of the conduct described in the indictment to determine which actions were official and which were not, as they firmly rejected any form of presidential immunity. Although both parties touched on the subject during the oral argument in response to queries, neither side has briefed us on it. Along with the underlying immunity issue, that classification also brings up a number of first-of-a-kind and significant concerns about the President’s constitutionally granted authorities and jurisdiction.”

To put it briefly, the Supreme Court refused to decide how to distinguish between official and unofficial conduct. Rather, it will return the case to the subordinate courts for resolution.

The Supreme Court did provide some direction.

“Given the President’s official link to the position he holds, some allegations—like the ones about Trump’s conversations with the Acting Attorney General—are easily classified. Additional claims raise more challenging issues, such as those about Trump’s contacts with the vice president, public figures, select private parties, and his remarks to the broader public.”

Roberts concluded.

“This case raises an important question that will likely never be resolved: Can a former president be held accountable for official actions performed while in office? The Court, unlike the political branches and the general public, cannot afford to focus solely—or even mostly—on the pressing issues of the day while addressing that question. In this case, our ruling is based on the enduring separation of powers principles. Although not everything the President does is official, he is not immune from consequences for his non-official actions. The law does not exempt the president. However, our system of separated authorities grants the President at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official activities, preventing him from facing charges for exercising his fundamental constitutional powers. Every individual holding the Oval Office receives this immunity.”

Jackson filed the dissenting opinion. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.

Following the announcement, former President Trump posted the following message on Truth Social: “HUGE WIN FOR OUR DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTION.” I AM GLAD TO BE AMERICAN!”

The case was arguably the most closely followed this year, not only because of the implications for all of the ongoing federal court cases against Trump but also because of what it would mean for the Biden administration’s prosecution of Trump for contesting the 2020 election results due to allegations of widespread fraud.

The Biden administration has attempted to obstruct Donald Trump’s presidential campaign by turning the legal system into a weapon. In addition, the left started a national campaign to have him taken off the ballot; however, this failed when the Supreme Court intervened.

According to Trump, all previous presidents ought to be exempt from legal consequences for decisions they made while in office. His defense team contended that in order to prosecute any former president for the same offense in federal court, there must be a legislative impeachment conviction. Trump had previously lost cases in two lower courts.

Trump has made postponing his lawsuits until after the 2024 election a part of his agenda. Some argue that the Supreme Court’s lengthy ruling process, which has delayed proceedings to the point where no trial is likely to conclude in time for the presidential election, is the reason for his success in only bringing the case to the court.

Professor Jonathan Entin of Case Western Reserve University’s School of Law told CNN last month that “Trump has already won something.” “Trump has practically gained time in this case, regardless of the court’s decision.”

However, the Supreme Court was required to decide certain practical issues in this case.

In its petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case, Trump’s attorneys said that “criminal prosecution, with its greater stigma and more severe punishments, imposes a considerably greater “personal vulnerability” on the President than any civil penalty.” The potential for criminal prosecution by a politically opposed administration will overshadow every future president’s official activities, especially the most politically difficult decisions.”

The opposition party would immediately indict every departing president, according to Trump’s long-standing claims, if immunity didn’t exist. He restated his position that, in the absence of total immunity, a president could not perform his duties in an efficient manner.

“A president cannot perform their duties effectively without presidential immunity, which puts the United States of America at grave and permanent risk.” In April, Trump penned a post on Truth Social.

Trump even claimed that Biden would face similar punishment once he leaves office, citing the Democrats’ lawfare operation against him as the reason behind the establishment of a new precedent that subjects all future presidents to criminal prosecution.

“If they revoke my presidential immunity, they revoke the presidential immunity of crooked Joe Biden,” he declared.

Many conjectured that the justices were leaning toward some form of presidential immunity following the April oral arguments.

During oral arguments, Gorsuch stated, “I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on suspicions about their motives.” “We are composing an edict for the ages.”

In fact, Donald Trump has achieved a rather comfortable victory.

Author: Steven Sinclaire