The United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision on whether the president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office.
The ruling is the result of an action brought by former president Donald Trump, who is currently charged under two federal criminal indictments: One in the Southern District of Florida, alleging he mishandled classified documents at his Palm Beach home; and one in Washington, D.C, arguing Trumps attempts to overturn the 2020 election results were criminal.
The DC case was the catalyst behind the 119-page opinion, which in a six-to-three ruling along ideological lines, held that the president does enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for exercising the core constitutional powers of the office. As for the duties of the president not explicitly spelled out in the constitution, the majority decided the president is entitled to at least presumptive immunity.
That raises a new legal question: What is an official act of the presidency?
The opinion places the burden on prosecutors to prove that an act in office is not official, and for the trial court judge to decide.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein, now a defense attorney in Miami, said the ruling is all but certain to delay the DC case, which had been on hold pending this decision.
Weinstein believes the ruling will impact, but not entirely derail, the Florida case, which focuses largely on the retention of classified documents after Trump was out of the White House.
There’s some language in (the ruling) about use of certain documents about not being able to talk about the motive behind what was taking place while the person was president,” Weinstein said. But remember, the charges in Fort Pierce relate to actions that were taken after January 21, for the most part, when he was no longer the president and actions that he took to obstruct an ongoing investigation.
The majority of justices said immunity is important to prevent the president from being unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion will have disastrous consequences for the presidency and for our democracy.