Donald Trump secured a partial win this week at the United States Supreme Court, a decision that marks a notable milestone in a long-running legal saga. The six-member conservative majority held that the president enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for acts carried out in his official capacity, though not necessarily for actions taken before assuming the presidency. The ruling stops short of granting a blanket blanket immunity for all acts, but it reshapes the legal calculus by steering the dispute back to the lower courts for further consideration.
Although the justices did not definitively settle whether the former president possesses total immunity for official acts performed while in office, by sending the case back to lower tribunals they have effectively provided Trump with a clear procedural pathway. The decision delays the criminal case in Washington, which centers on attempts to overturn the 2020 election result that Biden won, and which culminated in the assault on the Capitol. The practical consequence is a postponement of trial timing that aligns with the political calendar, making it less likely that a verdict will arrive before the next round of political campaigning. [Citation: Supreme Court opinion; case references summarized in official court materials]
The presiding judge in the Washington matter, Tanya Chutkan, had anticipated that the preparatory phase could take up to three months before a trial would begin, with the trial itself potentially lasting two to three months. The timeline now hinges on how the court defines which acts count as official acts versus private actions, a distinction that directly influences the scope of potential criminal exposure for the former president. [Source: Court documents and contemporaneous summaries]
Trump’s actions and the charges
//[–> // <– //]
The case centers on several interlinked actions associated with Trump: pressuring state lawmakers and election officials to disregard the popular vote; organizing “alternate slates” of electors in seven states; seeking DOJ involvement to probe alleged (and often disputed) electoral fraud to persuade states to accept the “alternate electors,” and pressing for Vice President Pence to use his largely ceremonial role on January 6 to alter the results. It also scrutinizes his efforts to delay the certification of Biden’s victory following the Capitol riot. [Citation: Court proceedings and indictment summaries]
Special prosecutor Jack Smith charged Trump with four conspiracy-related counts: defrauding the United States, interfering with civil rights by attempting to overturn the legitimate election outcome, and two counts of obstruction related to official procedures and congressional processes. Those two obstruction charges have faced questions after a recent Supreme Court ruling that rejected the use of an obstruction statute to increase penalties for the riot defendants. [Source: Indictment texts and Supreme Court summaries]
While the Supreme Court ruling does not resolve the core issue of immunity, the likely delay in any final decision until well after the current election cycle provides Trump with a tactical avenue. If he were to win again, there is a possibility that a future DOJ would consider moving to withdraw the charges in this federal case, alongside another federal matter in Florida dealing with mishandling classified documents. [Citation: Court commentary and subsequent legal analyses]
Trump has faced a broad slate of legal challenges, including an ongoing set of 88 criminal counts across various jurisdictions. He has already been convicted on 34 of those charges in New York connected to a separate case involving hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, with sentencing set for the near future. However, he has managed to postpone or secure favorable procedural outcomes in the Washington and Florida cases, while continuing to contest the charges tied to the 2020 election interference in Georgia. [Source: Court records and district attorney statements]
A historic ruling
//[–> // <– //]
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that a sitting president cannot be sued civilly for acts undertaken during the term, but this week marked the first time the justices addressed criminal immunity for a former president. Both the trial court and a circuit court of appeals had previously denied such immunity, but Trump elevated the question to the high court. Earlier in the year, during lengthy oral arguments, it appeared that a landmark decision might be on the horizon. [Citation: Supreme Court transcripts and opinions]
During the arguments, Trump’s attorney argued that a former president might be immune even if an order to commit unlawful acts had been given. They suggested that accountability should be limited to impeachment rather than criminal prosecution. Trump has already endured a second impeachment related to attempts to block a peaceful and legitimate transfer of power, though he was acquitted by Republican lawmakers. The lawyer warned that denying immunity would open a “Pandora’s box” that could hinder presidential decision-making in times of controversy. [Source: Court proceedings and quotes from the defense team]
Several conservative judges expressed concerns about granting such immunity, including two of the three judges appointed by Trump. They warned about the long-term implications for future presidents. One judge observed that the decision would shape the presidency for generations. Yet the three progressive justices presented a cautious stance, arguing that the Constitution does not shield presidents from accountability on criminal grounds. They underscored that history rejects the idea of a monarch wielding power above the law. [Citations: Judicial opinions and courtroom exchanges]