Supreme Court hands Trump huge immunity win, narrows ability to prosecute presidents

In a landmark decision on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump possesses absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for many actions taken during his presidency. The ruling, split 6-3 with the conservative justices prevailing, addresses Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, clarifying the boundaries of presidential immunity and setting the stage for further judicial proceedings.

Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.

The justices created three categories to assess presidential actions: official acts with absolute immunity, unofficial conduct without immunity, and acts in the gray area requiring further judicial review.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” He elaborated that this immunity does not extend to actions that fall outside the bounds of official presidential duties. Roberts specified that immunity does not cover actions that are purely personal or political in nature, nor does it shield conduct that is taken for personal gain rather than in the service of the nation.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred partly, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Trump’s legal team, led by attorney D. John Sauer, had argued for a broad interpretation of presidential immunity, asserting that Trump’s actions, including efforts to influence the election results through various means, were performed in his official capacity and should therefore be shielded from prosecution.

Trending stories

Joe Biden has tied the record for most LGBTQ+ judges confirmed in federal courts

Out and About with Karan Soni

Plastique Tiara reaches 4M followers—close to surpassing Trixie Mattel

Your Lovable Trans Auntie asks, "Where do we go from here?"

Broadway bound: The best hotels in NYC’s Theater District for every type of traveler

France becomes world’s first country to enshrine abortion rights in constitution

​'Naked Gun' trailer: Liam Neeson dons drag, reveals strawberry panties​

Cowboys & Queens U.S. tour by Jane Hilton: A modern American dream

Trump's orders prompt CDC to erase HIV resources

Beyond Wonderland's accepting & unifying rave culture is needed more than ever

The Charles is Pacific Grove's new LGBTQ+ hotel

Dylan Efron dishes on his sexy back arch & Speedo pics: 'That's what I'm good at!'

Tracy Chapman's debut album turns 35: Watch these iconic performances

How climate disasters hurt mental health in young people

When Lady Gaga met Chappell Roan, she made sure to tell her this

Season 4 of The Switch on resilience & radical self-love returns this spring

Ranking NWSL teams by how gay the name is

Discover the power of Wellness in your life

Matt Bomer reveals his favorite 'Fellow Travelers' sex scene with Jonathan Bailey

Robert Irwin is stripping down & rocking tiny briefs in new underwear campaign

Elon Musk uses burner accounts on X, doesn’t fact-check: report

Broadway's best raise over $1 million for LGBTQ+ and HIV causes

Peaches Christ says she's been 'retraumatized' by police investigating drag icon Heklina's death

All 6 rogue Mississippi cops got long prison sentences in 'Goon Squad' torture of 2 Black men

Gerald Garth is keeping people of color happy and healthy through trying times

• 0
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Some justices expressed skepticism during oral arguments about Trump’s expansive immunity claims. Kagan questioned Sauer, asking, “How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup?” Sauer responded, “If it’s an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand.” Kagan retorted, “That sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” eliciting laughter from the courtroom.

In her dissent, Sotomayor laid out the dire ramifications of the decision.

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,” she wrote. “Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

The case now returns to the District Court, which must dissect the indictment’s detailed allegations to distinguish Trump’s official acts from unofficial conduct. The government must rebut presumptive immunity for official acts to proceed with prosecution.

This ruling impacts Trump’s legal battles and sets a precedent for future presidential conduct, emphasizing that while the president is protected for official duties, they are not above the law, though critics say it does just that.