Closing summary
The supreme court ruled on Monday that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, a major victory for Donald Trump that guts the 2020 election subversion case against him and any prospect of a trial before November.
Here’s a recap of what happened today:
In a 6-3 decision, the court found that presidents were protected from prosecution for official actions that extended to the “outer perimeter” of his office, but could face charges for unofficial conduct.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said a former president is entitled to “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority”.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion, warned that a consequence of the ruling is that “the President is now a king above the law”. The decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law”, she added.
Trump celebrated the ruling as a “big win for our constitution and democracy” – a view echoed by the Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, and many Republicans.
But Democratic leaders expressed outrage over a ruling that legal experts warn could undermine the foundations of US democracy. “This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy,” said Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader. New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the decision was “an assault on American democracy”, while Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, warned that the supreme court’s immunity decision “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation”.
Trump’s longtime rightwing ally Steve Bannon turned himself in to start a prison term. Bannon arrived at a federal prison in Connecticut to serve a four-month sentence for defying multiple subpoenas surrounding the House’s January 6 insurrection investigation.
Updated
The supreme court’s decision to confer broad immunity to former presidents is likely to eviscerate numerous parts of the criminal prosecution against Donald Trump over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The court remanded the case back to the presiding US district judge, Tanya Chutkan, to apply a three-part test to decide which actions were protected – but Chief Justice John Roberts pre-emptively made clear that some were definitively out.
On some of the closer calls, Roberts also gave suggestions on behalf of the majority conservative opinion, which could bear on Chutkan when she eventually weighs each allegation line by line and decides whether it can be introduced in any future trial.
Most crucially for special counsel Jack Smith, his prosecutors will not be able to introduce as evidence any acts deemed to be official and struck from the case, even as contextual information for jurors to show Trump’s intent.
Trump is accused of overseeing a sprawling effort to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election, including two counts of conspiring to obstruct the certification of the election results, conspiring to defraud the government and conspiring to disenfranchise voters.
The alleged illegal conduct came in five categories: Trump pressuring US justice department officials to open sham investigations into election fraud, Trump pressing his vice-president to return him to the White House, Trump trying to obstruct Congress from certifying the election, Trump giving a speech that led rioters to storm the US Capitol building, and Trump’s plot to recruit fake electors .
Roberts undercut at least three of the five alleged categories in the opinion.
Updated
Mary Trump, Donald Trump’s niece, was also inspired by Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in today’s immunity ruling.
“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Mary Trump posted to X, quoting Sotomayor, accompanied by a link selling T-shirts inspired by the justice’s dissent.
I made a shirt. Get yours today: https://t.co/N1gde9KOKq
— Mary L. Trump (@MaryLTrump) July 1, 2024
Updated
Supreme court decisions: the biggest cases this term and their outcomes
The supreme court has wrapped up its 2023-2024 term, issuing a string of blockbuster decisions with enormous implications for American democracy, individual and civil rights, and the basic functioning of the federal government.
Once again, the conservative supermajority, with half its justices appointed by Donald Trump, was in the driver’s seat – strengthening the power of the presidency in its immunity ruling for Trump, and overturning precedent in a dramatic blow to the administrative state.
There were crumbs of comfort for liberals, including a gun rights ruling related to domestic violence and a unanimous decision upholding access to a key abortion pill, but what the US public increasingly sees as an activist court majority continues in full swing.
Read our full report on the supreme court’s biggest cases this term.
Updated
Hillary Clinton, responding to the supreme court’s immunity ruling, said it will be up to the American people to hold Donald Trump accountable in the November election.
Posting to X, Clinton said she agreed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, in which she said that she had “fear for our democracy”.
I agree with Justice Sotomayor about the immunity ruling from the MAGA wing of the Supreme Court:
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 1, 2024
“With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
It will be up to the American people this November to hold Donald Trump accountable.
Updated
Former attorney general Eric Holder was also highly critical of the supreme court ruling, warning that American democracy has been “gravely wounded” as a result.
Posting to X, Holder described the decision as “absurd and dangerous”.
Our democracy has been gravely wounded
— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) July 1, 2024
The Trump immunity decision says: a president CAN VIOLATE THE CRIMINAL LAW if he acts within his broadly defined “constitutional authority”
Absurd and dangerous
There is no basis in the Constitution for this Court constructed…
New York congressman Jerrold Nadler, a ranking member of the House judiciary committee, has described the supreme court’s immunity decision as “revolutionary”.
The ruling is “far cry from the democracy envisioned by our founding fathers”, Nadler said in a statement.
Once again, Donald Trump’s extremist rightwing court has come to his rescue, dramatically expanding the power of the presidency and removing any fear of prosecution for criminal acts committed using official power. If elected to a second term, this decision has set the stage for an unchecked dictatorship by the former president, who has already made clear his intentions to weaponize the presidency to seek revenge on his political opponents.
Updated
Dick Durbin, the Senate majority whip, said it was “disgraceful” that justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito “brazenly” refused to recuse themselves from the Trump immunity case.
The supreme court’s decision “threatens the rule of law”, Durbin wrote in a series of posts on X responding to the ruling.
Relatedly, it is disgraceful that Justices Thomas and Alito brazenly refused to recuse themselves from this case.
— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) July 1, 2024
As I’ve said before, the appearance of impropriety or partiality require recusal.
Until Chief Justice Roberts uses his existing authority to enact an enforceable code of conduct, I will continue to push to pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.
— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) July 1, 2024
In May, Alito declined to recuse himself from cases related to Donald Trump and his 2020 election defeat following reports that flags used to support the “Stop the Steal” movement had been displayed at his homes.
Calls for Thomas to recuse himself from the immunity case were also ignored, after critics cited past efforts by the justice’s wife, Ginni Thomas, to reverse the 2020 presidential election in Trump’s favor.
Nancy Pelosi said the supreme court has “gone rogue” with today’s immunity ruling, saying it was “violating the foundational American principle that no one is above the law”.
Posting to X, the former House speaker said:
The former president’s claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King.
Today, the Supreme Court has gone rogue with its decision, violating the foundational American principle that no one is above the law.
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) July 1, 2024
The former president’s claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King.
Updated
House Republicans sue Merrick Garland over Biden interview
House Republicans on Monday filed a lawsuit against the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, for the audio recording of Joe Biden’s interview with a special counsel in his classified documents case, asking the courts to enforce their subpoena and reject the White House’s effort to withhold the materials from Congress, the Associated Press reports.
The lawsuit filed by the House judiciary committee marks Republicans’ latest broadside against the justice department as partisan conflict over the rule of law animates the 2024 presidential campaign. The legal action comes weeks after the White House blocked Garland from releasing the audio recording to Congress by asserting executive privilege.
Republicans in the House responded by voting to make Garland the third attorney general in US history to be held in contempt of Congress. But the justice department refused to take up the contempt referral, citing the agency’s “longstanding position and uniform practice” to not prosecute officials who don’t comply with subpoenas because of a president’s claim of executive privilege.
The lawsuit states that House speaker Mike Johnson made a “last-ditch effort” last week to Garland to resolve the issue without taking legal action but the attorney general referred the Republicans to the White House, which rebuffed the “effort to find a solution to this impasse”.
Garland has defended the justice department, saying officials have gone to extraordinary lengths to provide information to the committees about special counsel Robert Hur’s classified documents investigation, including a transcript of Biden’s interview with him.
Updated
Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of late Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, said on Monday she would use a new role as chair of the US-based Human Rights Foundation (HRF) to step up her husband’s struggle against Russian president Vladimir Putin, Reuters reports.
The New York-based HRF said in a statement on Monday it had appointed Navalnaya to succeed former world chess champion and Kremlin critic Garry Kasparov as chair of the non-profit rights group, which provides humanitarian aid to Ukraine and runs campaigns against authoritarian leaders around the world.
Navalnaya, who is located outside Russia and had two children with Navalny, accused Putin of having her husband murdered. The Kremlin denied the allegation.
Navalnaya said after her husband’s death that she wanted to continue his work and has since met world leaders and suggested sanctions she believes would hasten the end of the current political system in Russia.
Navalnaya, 47, said in the HRF statement:
As someone who has personally witnessed the threat dictatorships pose to our loved ones and the world at large, I am deeply honored to take on the role of chair of the Human Rights Foundation.
Updated
Hunter Biden sues Fox News over 'mock trial' miniseries
Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden sued conservative news outlet Fox News on Monday for publishing nude photos and videos of him in a fictionalized “mock trial” show focused on his foreign business dealings, Reuters reports.
Hunter Biden alleges Fox violated New York state’s so-called revenge porn law, which makes it illegal to publish intimate images of a person without their consent. He is also suing for unjust enrichment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Fox aired The Trial of Hunter Biden: A Mock Trial for the American People on its Fox Nation streaming platform in October 2022 but later took it down under threat of a lawsuit by Biden’s attorneys.
Fox News said in a statement:
This entirely politically motivated lawsuit is devoid of merit.
It only removed the program out of an abundance of caution, it said.
Biden’s lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The series depicted a fictional trial of Hunter Biden on illegal foreign lobbying and bribery charges, crimes he has never been indicted for.
Updated
Interim summary
Americans are digesting the monumental supreme court decision this morning that’s dominating the news. And Trump sidekick Steve Bannon has reported to a prison in Connecticut to serve a four-month term for contempt of Congress. There’s no shortage of US politics happenings, so stay tuned.
Here’s where things stand:
Some prominent Democrats in the House have blasted the US supreme court ruling that US presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for “official” acts taken while in office. Progressive caucus chair and Washington congresswoman Pramila Jayapal called it “another horrible ruling from the MAGA Supreme Court” while New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the decision is “an assault on American democracy”.
And Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House minority leader, warned that the supreme court’s immunity decision “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation”, adding that “the framers of the constitution … did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity”.
But Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, welcomed the immunity decision. He said it was a victory for Donald Trump “and all future presidents” and, on the principle, added that the court “clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts. This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the constitution and common sense.”
Donald Trump’s longtime rightwing ally Steve Bannon turned himself in to start a prison term. Bannon arrived at a federal prison in Connecticut to serve a four-month sentence for defying multiple subpoenas surrounding the House’s January 6 insurrection investigation.
The three liberal justices on the US supreme court, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all dissented from the majority opinion granting US presidents immunity for “official acts” while in office. Sotomayor wrote the dissent, saying: “The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”
Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform shortly after the court issued its decision on his immunity case, writing: “Big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American.”
The US supreme court ruled that US presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from prosecution for “official acts”. The court held that a former president – in this case Donald Trump – has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. The decision fell along party lines, with six conservative justices ruling against three liberal ones. But the court also ruled that former presidents are not entitled to immunity from prosecution for actions taken in a private capacity. It’s now down to interpretation which acts are which.
Updated
Pramila Jayapal, the Democratic representative for Washington, has described the supreme court’s immunity ruling as a “bad decision”.
Posting on X, she wrote:
This is another horrible ruling from the MAGA Supreme Court that strips protections for people and empowers conservative special interests.
This is a shocking decision.
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) July 1, 2024
The extreme right-wing Supreme Court just drastically weakened accountability if a president attempts to use their office for criminal purposes. It’s a disastrous ruling that could have grave effects on our democracy. https://t.co/itUIX7Gc5l
Updated
A small number of protesters gathered outside the supreme court building after the justices ruled that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, in a decision widely seen as a win for Donald Trump.
Updated
AOC says ruling is 'assault on American democracy'
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York Democratic congresswoman, has described the supreme court’s immunity ruling as “an assault on American democracy”.
In a statement, she said:
The supreme court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.
Updated
Former Capitol police Sgt Aquilino Gonell, who was injured by pro-Trump insurrectionists during the January 6 attack, has described the supreme court’s decision as “very disappointing”, AP reported.
Gonell, speaking in front of the supreme court as the ruling was handed down, criticized the decision to return the case to a lower court. He said:
What is it that we are playing other than delaying the inevitable, which is that Donald Trump needs to face the consequences?
Gonell was severely beaten in the Capitol attack and retired from the force in 2022 due to his injuries. He has previously described how he was “crushed” by pro-Trump insurrectionists as he and colleagues tried to stop them entering the building.
Updated
Democratic House minority leader decries 'dangerous precedent'
Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House minority leader, has warned that the supreme court’s immunity decision “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation”.
No one, including the twice-impeached former president, should be above the law. The constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all. That’s what makes America special.
My statement in connection with the Supreme Court decision to bend the knee to the Insurrectionist-in-Chief. pic.twitter.com/OqTF7PqAAt
— Hakeem Jeffries (@RepJeffries) July 1, 2024
Updated
House speaker welcomes immunity decision
Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, has also issued a statement in response to the supreme court’s immunity decision.
Today’s ruling by the Court is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith. The Court clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts. This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the Constitution and common sense. As President Trump has repeatedly said, the American people, not President Biden’s bureaucrats, will decide the November 5th election.
Updated
Trump ally Steve Bannon turns himself in to prison
Steve Bannon has arrived at prison to serve a four-month sentence for defying multiple subpoenas surrounding the House’s January 6 insurrection investigation.
Bannon, a longtime ally of Donald Trump, reported to FCI Danbury, the minimum-security prison in Connecticut, where he spoke to a gaggle of press and supporters before turning himself in. “I have no regrets and I’m proud of what I did,” he said.
At the press conference, Bannon, who was joined by the far-right Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, appeared gleeful. He taunted the media outlets in attendance, urged supporters to take up the “fight” and gloated about the supreme court’s ruling that presidents have “absolute” immunity for official acts.
"Trump is going to be sentenced to prison on July 11. Me going here for four months is nothing."
— The Recount (@therecount) July 1, 2024
— Steve Bannon speaks outside a prison in Danbury, Connecticut, where he will surrender today for defying a January 6th congressional subpoena pic.twitter.com/ymEdVymDF1
Bannon lost a last-ditch effort on Friday to avoid prison time after the supreme court rejected his request to delay his prison sentence.
Federal prosecutors say Bannon believed that he was “above the law” when he refused a deposition with the January 6 House select committee, in addition to refusing to turn over documents on his efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results.
Bannon has accused the convictions against him of being politically motivated, with his lawyer David Schoen saying that the case raises “serious constitutional issues” that need to be investigated by the supreme court.
Updated
Richard Blumenthal, the Democratic senator for Connecticut, called the supreme court’s ruling a “cravenly political decision” and a “license for authoritarianism”.
Posting to X, he added:
My stomach turns with fear & anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control Court. The members of Court’s conservative majority will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme & nakedly partisan hacks – politicians in robes.
The Supreme Court has put lawbreaking presidents like Donald Trump above the law. This cravenly political decision to shield President Trump grants him a legal armor that no other citizen enjoys. 1/ https://t.co/TukNSiQQDu
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) July 1, 2024
The net effect is not only to delay Trump’s criminal trial, but bestow an unwise & unjust broad shield for him & other presidents who flout & flagrantly abuse their office. This is a license for authoritarianism. 2/
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) July 1, 2024
My stomach turns with fear & anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control Court. The members of Court’s conservative majority will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme & nakedly partisan hacks—politicians in robes. 3
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) July 1, 2024
Updated
To determine whether Donald Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results came under the protected auspices of his official duties, the supreme court remanded the case back to the presiding US district judge, Tanya Chutkan, who will have to review the indictment line by line.
The court left the bulk of the analysis up to Chutkan. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, found that Trump’s threat to fire the then acting attorney general for refusing to open investigations were protected, because the justice department is part of the executive branch.
Roberts similarly found that Trump’s effort to pressure his vice-president, Mike Pence, was probably protected, as the president discussing responsibilities with the vice-president was an instance of official conduct. The opinion said:
Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
The final decision on the Pence question rested with Chutkan, wrote Roberts. The burden was on prosecutors to “rebut the presumption of immunity” and whether charging Trump would “pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch”.
And on the matter of Trump’s remarks on January 6, Roberts wrote that they too were probably protected, since presidential addresses were an integral function of the office. But the opinion also allowed that in Trump’s case it may be more appropriate to categorize his speech as that of a candidate for office.
Updated
Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, criticized the supreme court’s “disgraceful” decision, adding that the ruling “undermines SCOTUS’s credibility and suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today”.
This disgraceful decision by the MAGA SCOTUS—which is comprised of 3 justices appointed by Trump himself—enables the former President to weaken our democracy by breaking the law.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) July 1, 2024
It undermines SCOTUS's credibility and suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today. https://t.co/wCNI42U5Ki
Updated
Here’s some more reactions from Donald Trump’s allies to the supreme court’s immunity decision.
Jim Jordan, the Republican congressman for Ohio and chair of the House judiciary committee, called special counsel Jack Smith “hyper-partisan”, adding that he hoped “that the Left will stop its attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms”.
Hyper-partisan prosecutors like Jack Smith cannot weaponize the rule of law to go after the Administration's chief political rival, and we hope that the Left will stop its attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms.
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 1, 2024
The Judiciary Committee will continue to oversee… https://t.co/vird1G76WF
Marsha Blackburn, the Republican senator for Tennessee, said the ruling “rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump”.
Today’s Supreme Court ruling upholds the rule of law in our country and rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump.
— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) July 1, 2024
Time and time again, Americans have watched the Biden administration do everything in its power to take down President Trump, but this partisan attack will not stand in America.
— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) July 1, 2024
The Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville said the court had delivered a “crushing blow to Joe Biden’s 4-year witch hunt against President Trump”.
The Supreme Court just delivered a crushing blow to Joe Biden’s 4-year witch hunt against President Trump.
— Tommy Tuberville (@TTuberville) July 1, 2024
Trump will wipe the floor with Biden in November. #MAGA
Updated
Marjorie Taylor Greene, the far-right Georgia congresswoman, has also welcomed the supreme court ruling.
Green, speaking to NBC News, said the court had made the “right decision” and called for special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation to be “defunded”.
Updated
Donald Trump Jr, the eldest son of Donald Trump, has praised the supreme court’s “solid” ruling in a post on X.
Solid SCOTUS ruling today.
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 1, 2024
I’m sure the corrupt prosecutors and DC judge will work overtime to continue their lawfare. It’s all they have left.
Updated
Justice Sotomayor says president 'is now a king above the law' in dissent
The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all dissented from the majority opinion.
Writing in her dissent, Sotomayor said:
The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
She warned of the “stark” long-term consequences of today’s decision, noting that the court had effectively created a “law free zone” around the president.
This new official-acts immunity now ‘lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation.
Sotomayor continued:
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. 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.
Updated
The Biden campaign has responded to the supreme court’s ruling related to presidential immunity.
In a statement, a senior Biden campaign adviser said:
Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold on to power for himself.
Since January 6, Trump has only grown more unhinged. He’s promising to be a dictator ‘on day one,’ calling for our Constitution to be ‘terminated’ so he can regain power, and promising a “bloodbath” if he loses. The American people already rejected Donald Trump’s self-obsessed quest for power once – Joe Biden will make sure they reject it for good in November.
Updated
The US supreme court has ruled that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, dramatically reducing the likelihood that the federal criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to stop the transfer of power will proceed before the 2024 election.
The court’s conservative majority – which Trump helped create – found that presidents were protected from prosecution for official actions that extended to the “outer perimeter” of his office, but could face charges for conduct undertaken in a personal or private manner.
Trump is accused of overseeing a sprawling effort to subvert the 2020 election, including two counts of conspiring to obstruct the certification of the election results, conspiring to defraud the government and conspiring to disenfranchise voters.
Among the accusations: Trump spread false claims of election fraud, plotted to recruit fake slates of electors, pressured US justice department officials to open sham investigations into election fraud, and pressured his vice-president, Mike Pence, to obstruct Congress’s certification of Joe Biden’s win.
Updated
Trump says court ruling a 'big win'
Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform shortly after the court issued its decision on his immunity case, writing:
BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
Court decision 'makes a mockery of the principle' that 'no man is above the law', writes Sotomayor in dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, said the court’s decision in the Trump immunity case “makes a mockery of the principle … that no man is above the law”. She writes:
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.
The indictment “paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power”, she continued.
Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
Updated
Here’s how the supreme court voted in the Trump immunity case.
In a 6-3 ruling, the justices said that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts.
Updated
Court finds presidents not entitled to immunity for unofficial acts
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the court’s opinion, says:
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
Court finds presidents entitled to 'absolute immunity' from prosecution for official acts
The supreme court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. The decision fell along party lines, with six conservative justices ruling against three liberal ones.
But the court finds that former presidents are not entitled to immunity from prosecution for actions taken in a private capacity.
Writing the court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts says:
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. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Updated
Court issues decision in Trump immunity case
The supreme court has issued its decision on whether Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was in the White House.
We are currently reading through the court’s full decision.
Updated
Next up is the supreme court’s decision on NetChoice.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing the majority opinion, said:
Our unanimous agreement regarding NetChoice’s failure to show that a sufficient number of its members engage in constitutionally protected expression prevents us from accepting NetChoice’s argument regarding these provisions. In the lower courts, NetChoice did not even try to show how these disclosure provisions chill each platform’s speech.
You can read the court’s full decision here.
The supreme court has issued its first decision of the day, in the case of Corner Post Inc v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The case is about when the statute of limitations clock begins to accrue for challenges to government regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act.
In a 6-3 decision, the court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an agency action first comes into being when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
Updated
Besides the Trump immunity case, the supreme court has yet to release decisions on three other cases.
In two separate cases, Moody v NetChoice and NetChoice v Paxton, the court is weighing the constitutionality of laws in Texas and Florida regulating social media platforms. Both cases deal with how social media platforms moderate content and could have broad implications for freedom of speech online.
Filed by NetChoice, an association representing the world’s largest social media firms, both cases challenge state laws blocking social media platforms from moderating certain user content or banning users.
The court heard arguments in both cases in February. Here’s what to know about those two cases.
Updated
The big question today with the Trump immunity decision as we wait for the ruling: will the supreme court allow the special counsel to use “official” acts that might be struck from the indictment as contextual evidence for a jury at trial?
If the supreme court allows the trial judge to instruct jurors to consider Donald Trump’s official acts as a guide, just to add to their understanding of Trump’s motives, it may do no meaningful damage to the prosecution’s case in chief.
This issue was raised at oral argument when Michael Dreeben, arguing for the special counsel, drew parallels with speech that is protected by the first amendment but is part of a criminal case. People can’t be charged for speech, but it can be introduced as evidence for motive.
Updated
What would be the fallout if the supreme court granted Trump presidential immunity?
With four more cases to be decided, the supreme court is planned to issue its decision on Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim on Monday.
The case, which was presented before the conservative-majority supreme court on 25 April, was the last that was argued this term. According to critics, the supreme court’s decision to hold on to this case until early July while having issued decisions on other major cases in recent weeks is “intentional”.
“The delay that has occurred here is intentional, and it is destructive of our democratic process,” James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, told Salon.
Echoing similar sentiments, Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Harvard University, told Salon:
It’s obvious that the court has deliberately delayed everything … It could easily have issued a ruling much sooner … It could have taken the case in December when the special counsel asked it to be heard directly, or they could have declined to take the case after the court of appeals quite comprehensively rejected Trump’s appeal, so the trial could be over by now.
Regardless of what the supreme court’s decision on the case is, its handling of the case’s timeline has significantly decreased the chances of Trump standing trial before the 2024 presidential elections in November.
Updated
The supreme court’s decision on Donald Trump’s immunity case could be “one of the most important decisions in American history” for presidential power, Politico Playbook writes.
The smart money going into today is on Trump at least partially losing – but the court can be unpredictable, and a narrow ruling could delay Trump’s trial past the election (or forever if he wins).
Updated
The timing of the supreme court’s ruling on the Trump immunity case has come under fierce criticism. According to critics, the decision to hold on to this case until early July while having issued decisions on other major cases in recent weeks is “intentional”.
Regardless of what the court’s decision on the case is, by holding on to the case until early July, the justices have reduced, if not eliminated, the chances of Donald Trump standing trial before the 2024 presidential elections in November.
Across all four of his criminal cases, Trump has been trying to delay the trials’ start dates. Thus far, he has only been convicted in one of his cases, which involved hush-money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels in attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Updated
In Donald Trump v the United States, the supreme court will decide whether the former president will stand trial for his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and his role in the January 6 Capitol Hill insurrection.
According to Trump, who has been indicted by the justice department’s special counsel Jack Smith on four counts related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, presidents should be immune from federal prosecution.
The case was presented before the conservative-majority supreme court on 25 April, during which justices heard roughly three hours of oral arguments.
The court did not seem inclined to grant total immunity to Trump, but a majority of the justices suggested there should be some level of protection, and expressed an interest in having a lower court decide whether the indictment included “official” acts that could be expunged.
Updated
Supreme court to issue Trump immunity decision
Good morning US politics readers. Today marks the final day of the supreme court term, with justices expected to issue its long-anticipated decision on Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim.
The former president’s case is one of four rulings yet to be decided and certainly the one of greatest consequences. In Donald Trump v the United States, he is seeking absolute immunity from criminal prosecution over his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and his role in the January 6 Capitol Hill insurrection.
The court has three other cases remaining on the docket, including two cases over social media laws in Texas and Florida that could limit how platforms regulate posted content. The rulings will be issued one by one, starting at 10am eastern time.
Here’s what else we’re following:
Joe Biden is at Camp David today and will return to the White House tonight. The president’s family gathered on Sunday to urge him to stay in the race after a disastrous debate performance last week.
Steve Bannon, Trump’s longtime ally, is set to turn himself in to prison in Connecticut after the supreme court rejected his last-minute appeal to avoid prison time.
Updated
