In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court found that former
presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution.
The decision in the case of former President Donald Trump
is a additional delay in his prosecution on charges he
interfered with the outcome of the 2020 election.
And because it's going to require more work done by
the lower courts,
it makes it quite unlikely that any trial for the
former president could take place before the November election.
The decision found that official acts have some sort of
immunity,
while unofficial acts have no immunity.
In practical terms, that means some of the core functions
of being president,
like for instance, vetoing legislation,
could never be the subject of prosecution.
Other acts, including Trump's discussions with former Vice President Mike
Pence on January 6th and leading up to January 6th,
are presumed to be immune from prosecution,
but prosecutors will have a chance to present evidence.
To rebut that presumption, that work will all take place
in the trial court,
where U.S. District Judge Tanya Chukkin,
who would preside over the trial,
will have to sort out what is left of special
counsel Jack Smith's indictment.
Among the things she will be looking at is whether
the scheme to have fake electors in states Biden won
insist that actually Trump won the election,
whether that effort counts as a an official act or
as an unofficial act.
And if it's the latter,
presumably a prosecution could proceed on those grounds.
In a scathing dissent, a summary of which she read
in the courtroom,
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision makes a mockery
of the claim that no man is above the law.
She said that the Supreme Court majority was essentially elevating
presidents to the status of a king.
The court's ruling was six to three,
all from the conservative justices on the court,
and five of those votes.
Came from the three justices who were appointed by Donald
Trump to the Supreme Court,
as well as two others who rejected calls to step
aside from the case because of questions about their impartiality.
Among those was Justice Clarence Thomas,
who wrote a separate opinion in which he questioned the
validity of Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel.