The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for actions that were within his constitutional powers as president in a landmark decision recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court’s decision that had rejected Trump’s claim of immunity from federal criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority, while its three liberal members dissented.
Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Biden, a Democrat, in the Nov. 5 U.S. election in a 2020 rematch. The Supreme Court’s slow handling of the case and its decision to return key questions about the scope of Trump’s immunity to the trial judge to resolve make it improbable he will be tried before the election on these charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Here is a look at rulings issued in various cases.
TRUMP IMMUNITY CLAIM
The court on July 1 found that Trump cannot be prosecuted for any actions that were within his constitutional powers as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The 6-3 decision threw out a lower court’s ruling that had rejected Trump’s claim of immunity from federal criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Immunity for former presidents is “absolute” with respect to their “core constitutional powers,” according to the ruling, and a former president has “at least a presumptive immunity” for “acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.”
OBSTRUCTION CHARGE
The justices on June 28 raised the legal bar for prosecutors pursuing obstruction charges in the federal election subversion case against Trump and defendants involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The justices ruled 6-3 to throw out a lower court’s decision that had allowed a charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding – the congressional certification of Biden’s 2020 victory over Trump – against a defendant from Pennsylvania. Fischer had challenged the obstruction charge, which prosecutors brought against him and hundreds of others – including Trump – in Jan. 6-related cases.
TRUMP BALLOT DISQUALIFICATION
The court on March 4 handed Trump a major victory by barring states from disqualifying candidates for federal office under a constitutional provision involving insurrection and reversing Colorado’s exclusion of him from its ballot. The justices unanimously overturned a decision by Colorado’s top court to kick the former president off the state’s Republican primary ballot after finding that the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment disqualified him from again holding public office. The Colorado court had found that Trump took part in an insurrection for inciting and supporting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.
ABORTION PILL ACCESS
The justices on June 13 rejected a bid by anti-abortion groups and doctors to restrict access to the abortion pill in a 9-0 ruling that handed a victory to President Joe Biden’s administration in its efforts to preserve broad access to the drug. The justices overturned a lower court’s decision to roll back Food and Drug Administration steps in 2016 and 2021 that eased how the drug, called mifepristone, is prescribed and distributed. The court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to pursue the case.
IDAHO ABORTION LAW
The justices on June 27 allowed abortions to be performed in Idaho when pregnant women are facing medical emergencies in a ruling that did not decide the case on its merits. The 6-3 decision effectively reinstated a federal judge’s ruling that Idaho’s Republican-backed near-total abortion ban must yield to a 1986 U.S. law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act when the two statutes conflict. Biden’s administration had sued Idaho over the ban, which has a narrow exception permitting an abortion only to save the woman’s life.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GUN CURBS
The court on June 21 upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns. The 8-1 ruling overturned a lower court’s decision striking down the 1994 law as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.” The challenge was filed by a Texas man charged with illegal gun possession while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after assaulting his girlfriend.
BUMP STOCKS
The court on June 14 declared unlawful a federal ban on “bump stock” devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, rejecting yet another firearms restriction. The 6-3 ruling upheld a lower court’s decision siding with a plaintiff from Texas who challenged the ban by claiming that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives improperly interpreted a federal law banning machine guns as extending to bump stocks. The rule was implemented in 2019 after a 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting that killed 58 people.
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION FREE SPEECH
The justices on May 30 revived a National Rifle Association lawsuit accusing a New York state official of coercing banks and insurers to avoid doing business with the gun rights group in a 9-0 ruling that warned public officials against wielding their power to punish speech they dislike. The justices threw out a lower court’s ruling that had dismissed the NRA’s lawsuit. At issue is whether the official wielded her regulatory power to coerce financial institutions into cutting ties with the NRA in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government restrictions on free speech.
SOUTH CAROLINA VOTING
The court on May 23 made it harder to prove racial discrimination in electoral maps in a ruling backing South Carolina Republicans who moved out 30,000 Black residents when they redrew a congressional district. The 6-3 decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that the map had violated the rights of Black voters under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The case centered on the boundaries drawn by the Republican-led state legislature for one of South Carolina’s seven U.S. House of Representatives districts. The new map raised the district’s share of white voters and reduced its share of Black voters, who tend to support Democratic candidates.
FEDERAL AGENCY POWERS
The court on June 28 dealt a major blow to federal regulatory power by overturning a 1984 precedent that had given deference to government agencies in interpreting laws they administer. The justices ruled 6-3 to set aside lower court decisions against fishing companies that challenged a government-run program partly funded by industry that monitored overfishing of herring off New England’s coast. The overturned precedent, known as “Chevron deference,” had called for judges to defer to reasonable federal agency interpretations of U.S. laws deemed to be ambiguous.
SEC IN-HOUSE ENFORCEMENT
The justices on June 27 rejected the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s in-house enforcement of laws protecting investors against securities fraud, dealing another blow to the agency’s powers. The 6-3 decision upheld a lower court’s ruling siding with a Texas-based hedge fund manager who contested the legality of the SEC’s actions against him after the agency determined he had committed securities fraud. The ruling opened the door to challenges to other federal agencies’ in-house enforcement arrangements.
OZONE EMISSIONS
The court on June 27 blocked a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states. The 5-4 decision granted requests by Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, as well as U.S. Steel Corp X.N, pipeline operator Kinder Morgan KMI.N and industry groups, to halt enforcement of the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” plan restricting ozone pollution from upwind states, while they contest the rule’s legality in a lower court. The agency had said the rule would result in cleaner air for millions of people, saving thousands of lives.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG AGENCY’S FUNDING
The justices on May 16 upheld the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism in a challenge brought by the payday loan industry, handing a victory to Biden’s administration. The 7-2 decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that the CFPB’s funding design – drawing money each year from the Federal Reserve instead of from budgets passed by lawmakers – violated a provision of the U.S. Constitution giving Congress the power of the purse. The CFPB was established under a law signed by Democratic former President Barack Obama in 2010 to curb the kind of predatory lending that contributed to the 2007–2009 financial crisis.
DEBIT CARD ‘SWIPE FEES’
The court on July 1 revived a North Dakota convenience store’s challenge to a Federal Reserve regulation on debit card “swipe fees” in a ruling that could make it easier for businesses to try to undo longstanding federal rules. The 6-3 decision reversed a lower court’s dismissal of the 2021 lawsuit by the store that challenged the 2011 rule governing the amount businesses pay banks when customers use debit cards to make purchases. The dismissal had been based on the store missing a six-year statue of limitations.
PURDUE PHARMA BANKRUPTCY SETTLEMENT
The court on June 27 blocked OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement that would have shielded its wealthy Sackler family owners from lawsuits over their role in the deadly U.S. opioid epidemic. The 5-4 decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that had upheld the plan to give Purdue’s owners immunity in exchange for paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits accusing the company of unlawful misleading marketing of the powerful pain medication. The Biden administration had challenged the settlement as an abuse of bankruptcy protections meant for debtors in financial distress, not people like the Sacklers who have not filed for bankruptcy.
SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT MODERATION
The court on July 1 threw out a pair of judicial decisions involving challenges to Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas designed to restrict the power of social media companies to curb content that the platforms deem objectionable. The justices directed lower appeals courts to reconsider their decisions regarding these 2021 laws authorizing the states to regulate the content-moderation practices of large social media platforms. Tech industry trade groups have challenged the two laws as First Amendment violations.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
The justices on March 15 decided that government officials can sometimes be sued under the First Amendment for blocking critics on social media. In unanimous rulings in two cases from California and Michigan, the justices set a new standard for determining if public officials acted in a governmental capacity when blocking critics on social media – a test to be applied in lawsuits accusing them of First Amendment violations. First Amendment free speech protections generally constrain government actors, not private individuals.
BIDEN ADMINISTRATION SOCIAL MEDIA
The justices on June 26 declined to impose limits on the way the Biden administration may communicate with social media platforms, rejecting a challenge to how officials encouraged the removal of posts deemed misinformation, including about elections and COVID. The 6-3 ruling overturned a lower court’s decision that various federal officials likely violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects against governmental abridgment of free speech. The justices found that those behind the challenge including the states of Missouri and Louisiana lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case.
HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS
The court on June 28 upheld anti-camping laws used by authorities in an Oregon city to stop homeless people from sleeping in public parks and public streets – a ruling that gives local and state governments a freer hand in confronting a national homelessness crisis. The 6-3 ruling overturned a lower court’s decision that found that enforcing the ordinances in the city of Grants Pass when no shelter space is available for the homeless violates the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishments. Various jurisdictions employ similar laws.
STARBUCKS UNIONIZATION
The justices on June 13 sided with StarbucksSBUX.O in the coffee chain’s challenge to a judicial order to rehire seven Memphis employees fired as they sought to unionize in a ruling that could make it harder for courts to quickly halt labor practices contested as unfair under federal law. The justices unanimously threw out a lower court’s approval of an injunction sought by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board ordering Starbucks to reinstate the workers while the agency’s in-house administrative case against the Seattle-based company proceeds.
WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUITS
The justices on April 17 made it easier to bring certain workplace discrimination lawsuits in a ruling that gave a boost to a St. Louis police officer who claimed she was transferred to an undesirable new role because of her sex. At issue was whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars workplace bias, requires employees to prove that discrimination caused them significant harm such as a pay cut, demotion or job loss. The unanimous ruling disapproved that approach.
‘TRUMP TOO SMALL’ TRADEMARK
The court on June 13 barred a federal trademark for the phrase “Trump Too Small” – an irreverent criticism of the former U.S. president – rejecting a California lawyer’s claim that the trademark denial violated his First Amendment rights. The justices unanimously overturned a lower court’s decision that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s rejection of Steve Elster’s application to register the
“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” Roberts wrote.
Immunity for former presidents is “absolute” with respect to their “core constitutional powers,” Roberts wrote, and a former president has “at least a presumptive immunity” for “acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility,” meaning prosecutors face a high legal bar to overcome that presumption.
In remarks at the White House, Biden called the ruling “a dangerous precedent” because the power of the presidency will no longer be constrained by the law.
“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America … no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” added Biden, speaking hours after one of his campaign officials said the ruling makes it easier for Trump “to pursue a path to dictatorship.”
The ruling could scuttle parts of the special counsel’s case as U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan mulls the breadth of Trump’s immunity.
In recognizing broad immunity for Trump, Roberts cited the need for a president to “execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly” without the threat of prosecution.
“As for a president’s unofficial acts,” Roberts added, “there is no immunity.”
Trump hailed the ruling in a social media post, writing: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
Trump, 78, is the first former U.S. president to be criminally prosecuted and the first former president convicted of a crime. Smith’s election subversion charges embody one of the four criminal cases Trump has faced.
The court analyzed four categories of conduct contained in the indictment. They are: his discussions with U.S. Justice Department officials following the election; his alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to block congressional certification of Biden’s win; his alleged role in assembling fake pro-Trump electors to be used in the certification process; and his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.
The outcome gave Trump much of what he sought but stopped short of allowing absolute immunity for all official acts, as his lawyers had advocated. Instead the court specified that actions within the president’s “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” enjoy such a shield, while those taken outside his exclusive powers are only “presumptively immune.”
The court found Trump was absolutely immune for conversations with Justice Department officials. Trump is also “presumptively immune” regarding his interactions with Pence, it decided, but returned that and the two other categories to lower courts to determine whether Trump has immunity.
The ruling marked the first time since the nation’s 18th century founding that the Supreme Court has declared that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in any instance. The court’s conservative majority includes three justices Trump appointed.
The court decided the case on the last day of its term.
‘PRESIDENT IS NOW A KING’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, delivered a sharply worded dissent, saying the ruling effectively creates a “law-free zone around the president.”
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
“In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor added.
Trump’s trial had been scheduled to start on March 4 before the delays over the immunity issue. Now, no trial date is set. Trump made his immunity claim to the trial judge in October, meaning the issue has been litigated for about nine months.
‘THUMB ON THE SCALE’
UCLA School of Law professor Rick Hasen, a critic of Trump’s efforts to overturn his election defeat, said: “The Supreme Court has put out a fact-intensive test on the boundaries of the president’s immunity – with a huge thumb on the scale favoring the president’s immunity – in a way that will surely push this case past the election.”
“Sorting out the court’s opinion and how it applies is going to take a while,” Georgetown University law professor Erica Hashimoto added. “No chance of a pre-election trial.”
The Supreme Court made two other rulings this year beneficial to Trump. In March, it reinstated Trump to the presidential primary ballot in Colorado. And last week, it raised the legal bar for prosecutors pursuing obstruction charges in Smith’s election subversion case against Trump and defendants involved in the Capitol attack.
In the special counsel’s August 2023 indictment, Trump was charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, corruptly obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to do so, and conspiring against the right of Americans to vote. He has pleaded not guilty.
Sotomayor wrote on Monday: “Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for bold and unhesitating action by the president, the court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.”
In a separate case brought in New York state court, Trump was found guilty by a jury in Manhattan on May 30 on 34 counts of falsifying documents to cover up hush money paid to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal before the 2016 election. Trump also faces criminal charges in two other cases. He has pleaded not guilty in those and called all the cases against him politically motivated.
Not since its landmark Bush v. Gore decision, which handed the disputed 2000 U.S. election to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, has the Supreme Court played such an integral role in a presidential race.
If Trump regains the presidency, he could try to force an end to the prosecution or potentially pardon himself for any federal crimes.
