Featured
Jeremy R. Paul, a professor of law and former dean of the Northeastern University School of Law, says the ruling would give any future presidents a “blank check” to “basically do whatever you want.”
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former and future presidents enjoy some immunity from prosecution, handing former President Donald Trump a victory in his bid to stave off criminal prosecution of an alleged plot to subvert the 2020 presidential election — and recasting the scope of executive power.
The 6-3 vote, which states that Trump is entitled to “presumptive” immunity from prosecution for all of his “official acts,” was along party lines.
“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said, writing for the majority. “And he [Trump] is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
There is no immunity, however, for “unofficial acts,” the court wrote.
“You can engage in whatever evil deeds you want — just make sure to put the official trappings on it, and you’re good,” Paul says. “[The president] now gets to behave like a king, or a dictator.”
The dissent expressed a similar view. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision creates a “law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.”
“I think the dissent did a great job explaining that this [ruling] is a fundamental transformation of the nature of the presidency,” Paul says. “For 200 or more years, we have always thought that the law is on top and that the president is underneath. That is no longer the case, according to this court.”
“When you have a president, what you’re most worried about aren’t so-called unofficial acts,” Paul continues. “What the public should be worried about is that a president abuses his official authority, that’s the single greatest fear; that a single person with the vast power of the government at his or her disposal would use that power to corrupt ends.”
Trump’s lawsuit was in response to a case brought by special counsel Jack Smith related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Smith’s office issued indictments of Trump tied to a wide-ranging scheme to overturn the election results, which includes three charges of conspiracy and one count of obstructing an official proceeding.
Smith’s office also indicted Trump in connection with an FBI raid in 2022 on his private club, Mar-a-Lago, where the former president kept a trove of classified government documents.
In an urgent plea, Smith asked the Supreme Court last year to review the matter of whether Trump, who was president when he allegedly tried to overturn the election, should be shielded from prosecution to allow his pending criminal trial in the election interference case to proceed on time.
The timeline for the trial is uncertain — and now it’s highly unlikely to begin before the Nov. 5 election. That’s because as part of Monday’s ruling, the Supreme Court asked the lower court to decide which of Trump’s acts are official and unofficial, or private.
“The decision will now slow down Jack Smith’s case even more,” Paul says.
Trump would have spiked Smith’s case were he to be re-elected regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, Paul says.
The decision comes about a month after Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts that he covered up a hush-money payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.
“Bottom line is Trump already ‘won’ by getting the underlying case delayed with the Supreme Court hearing the case and taking its time to issue a ruling,” says Dan Urman, director of the law and public policy minor at Northeastern, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court.
“If Trump gets elected he will immediately order his attorney general to end the prosecution, even for the purely private acts — asking Georgia’s Secretary of State to find votes, and so on,” Urman says.
Urman notes that Trump will also dismiss the classified documents case.
“The only remaining case, then, will be the Atlanta one, which is under review for ethical lapses by prosecutors Fani Willis,” he says.
On Truth Social, Trump praised the decision: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”