The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed down its anxiously awaited decision on former President Donald Trump's claim that he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution in special counsel Jack Smith's federal election interference case.
The 6-3 decision came down along party lines, with the dissent from Democrat-appointed justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor was especially scathing in her dissent, arguing that the ruling gives presidents way too much authority.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett was part of the GOP majority in the ruling, which found that immunity was justified — but only for core official duties.
But journalist Jonathan Allen noted that there is some nuance in her reasoning.
READ MORE: 'Paid in blood': How the loss of Supreme Court legitimacy can lead to political violence
On X, formerly Twitter, Allen posted, "This SCOTUS opinion is near-total victory for Trump legally and a total win in terms of delaying/possibly vitiating prosecution. A president enjoys *presumptive immunity* for any acts inside and extending to the outer perimeter of his official duties Also big win for prez power."
But in a separate tweet, Allen also pointed out that "Barrett's partial concurrence is worth reading."
Allen noted, "She takes issue specifically with the idea that protected conduct can't be introduced as evidence at trial of a president. Also says it is hard to see pressuring state legislators - namely AZ House speaker — as an official act."
In an article published by Newsweek on July 1, reporter Katherine Fung said of Barrett, "While she agreed with the Court's opinion at large, she disagreed with one part of the ruling that held the Constitution prevents protected conduct from being introduced as evidence in a criminal prosecution against a former president, siding with the bench's three liberals instead."
READ MORE: Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Court just gave presidents power to assassinate political rivals
Barrett wrote, "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President's criminal liability."
Some MAGA Republicans are highly critical of Barrett's concurrence.
Trump supporter Sharon Cooper tweeted, " What is going on with Amy Coney Barrett? Who is she? She is a Supreme Court Justice, with a misguided view of our justice system."
Hans Mahncke posted, "Of course, Amy Coney Barrett had to disagree with something (she thinks that it should be allowable for a jury to be presented with official presidential acts as evidence of crimes having been committed)."
@GingerAmero wrote, "ACB is horrible and whoever recommended her should never be taken seriously ever, again." And @HoneywellNTodd attacked Barrett as "Justice Karen."
Meanwhile, legal expert Steve Vladecksaid of Barrett, " There's an important sub-part of the Trump immunity ruling in which #SCOTUS holds that "protected conduct" (that can't be prosecuted) also can't be used as *evidence* to establish other charges.
READ MORE: SCOTUS 'staged a coup' and will resemble Russian courts if Trump wins: conservative expert
