July 1 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has some immunity for official acts on Monday.
The court ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity in executing his core constitutional powers, such as the appointment of ambassadors. He also has a presumption of immunity for official acts related to his role as president. However he does not enjoy immunity for unofficial acts.
Trump’s defense argued that the former president has “absolute immunity,” shielding him from prosecution on four charges in the Washington election interference case.
This immunity applies to official acts in the role of president, though defense attorneys applied this more broadly to any actions taken by Trump while he was president.
A ruling in Trump’s favor, they believe, would have the case tossed out.
Monday is the final opinion day on the high court’s calendar before being released for summer break.
Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. These charges related to his role in attempting to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan shot down Trump’s immunity claim in the Washington case before the argument was taken to appeals. Chutkan has since put the case on hold while waiting for the high court’s opinion.
The case was originally set to go to trial on March 4.
Defense attorney John Sauer also made the argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that Trump must be impeached and convicted before he can be prosecuted.
Special counsel Jack Smith and other government prosecutors contend that no such immunity exists that would shield a former president from charges of fraud, obstruction and denying votes. Smith added that all presidents face the possibility of liability after leaving office.
“Since Watergate, the Department of Justice has held the view that a former president may face criminal prosecution, and independent and special counsels have operated from that same understanding,” Smith wrote in an April filing to the Supreme Court. “Until petitioner’s arguments in this case, so had former presidents.”
