After a ruling giving Donald Trump immunity from official acts, the former US president and 2024 Republican nominee has asked the judge in his hush money trial to set aside his conviction and sentencing.
America's highest court found ex-presidents have significant protection from criminal prosecution — a historic ruling that could have major ramifications for the criminal conviction and other charges against Mr Trump.
Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records, arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush money payment just before the 2016 presidential election.
His lawyers wrote to the New York judge who oversaw the jury trial, citing the US Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, and asked for a delay in the sentencing to consider the decision.
He is scheduled to be sentenced in the hush money case on July 11.
'Nightmare scenarios' made possible by ruling
Trump claimed he'd had a "big win" when the ruling was announced, though the Supreme Court has not spelled out exactly how its decision affects his ongoing legal woes. It has instead left that for a lower court to work out.
But the decision creates a major hurdle for prosecutors who have charged Trump with unlawful attempts to overturn the 2020 election result. The federal trial has almost no chance of going ahead before the November 5 election. The delay in itself is a win for Trump.
The Supreme Court was divided along ideological lines. Three Trump-appointed justices joined three other conservatives to hand down a 6-3 majority ruling.
But the court's other three justices warned the decision could lead to "nightmare scenarios" where presidents could carry out military coups or order political assassinations without fear of prosecution.
Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the dissenters' "tone of chilling doom", finding presidents had "absolute immunity" for "official acts" carried out while in office, but "no immunity for unofficial acts".
Trump posted on social media:
"Big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!"
What exactly has the court decided here?
For the first time in history, the Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents are protected from criminal prosecution for some – but not all – of what they do in office. Basically, anything that falls within their official job duties is protected.
Chief Justice John Roberts, explaining the majority ruling, wrote:
"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."
He said the president "is not above the law", but:
"Congress may not criminalise the president's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution."
Why has the court made this decision?
Donald Trump faces three criminal cases (and he's due to be sentenced next week in a fourth, for falsifying business records over hush money paid to a porn star). You can get caught up on all of the cases here.
The decision on Monday, local time, is a potentially huge blow to one of them: a federal case alleging he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Under four criminal counts, he is accused of:
- pressuring the Justice Department to investigate baseless claims of election interference
- trying to manipulate the electoral college voting system by using "fake electors" to register votes for him in states that actually voted for Joe Biden
- pressuring his then-vice-president, Mike Pence, not to certify the results
- encouraging his supporters before the attack on the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021
In fighting the allegations, Trump's lawyers had argued he shouldn't be prosecuted because a president has "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official duties".
Two lower courts rejected that argument, but Trump's lawyers wanted the Supreme Court to take it up, which it ultimately agreed to do.
What does the ruling mean for Trump?
The decision will further delay the case, which had been scheduled to start in March this year. And it could completely derail it.
The delay means there is almost no chance it will proceed to trial before the November 5 election.
A lower court will now need to determine which parts of the case can go ahead, and which parts should be struck out – in other words, which of Trump's alleged actions would have been "official acts" immune from prosecution, and which are not "official acts".
Although the Supreme Court stopped short of making those decisions, it did offer some specific guidance.
It found he had complete immunity for discussions with Justice Department officials, effectively leaving that part of the case against him in tatters. It also found he was "presumptively immune" for his interactions with Mr Pence.
"There's no other way to put it — this case is a major win for Donald Trump," says Claire Wofford, a political scientist at the College of Charleston who specialises in the US legal system.
"What I see, bottom line, is a very narrow path for this prosecution to go forward."
One of the justices went even further than the others, potentially creating another roadblock for the prosecution.
Justice Clarence Thomas — who has attracted recent controversy over revelations he's accepted travel and gifts from big Republican donors — issued a separate opinion, questioning prosecutor Jack Smith's appointment to the role of "special counsel" to run the Trump case.
He argued that role was not recognised under law, and Mr Smith was therefore just a "private citizen".
"A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former president."
None of the other justices signed on to that opinion, but it could give a lower court a basis for challenging Mr Smith's authority to prosecute Trump.
What does it mean for future American presidents?
The ruling leaves many practical questions unanswered.
But some legal experts — including the three Supreme Court justices who opposed the majority decision — say the ruling gives any future president largely unfettered power to commit crime without accountability. Some fear that will inevitably lead to corruption in the Oval Office.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned:
"To the extent that the majority’s new accountability paradigm allows Presidents to evade punishment for their criminal acts while in office, the seeds of absolute power for Presidents have been planted. And, without a doubt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
And Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting judgement backed by two of the other justices, warned it elevates the president to "a king above the law".
"When [the president] 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. Organises a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
Dr Wofford says the significance of the ruling ultimately depends on who is elected president in future.
"If, as many people fear, Donald Trump is just the first of many presidents who will go on and try to seize power and become more and more autocratic, then the ramifications of today's decision are hard to understate," she says.
What's the reaction been?
In a series of social media posts, Trump said the "brilliantly written and wise" decision "should end all of Crooked Joe Biden's witch hunts".
"Many of these fake cases will now disappear, or wither into obscurity," he predicted.
Later, President Joe Biden held an evening press conference to blast the court for setting a dangerous precedent that meant "there are virtually no limits on what the president can do".
"This decision today has continued the court's attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights, to taking away a woman's right to choose, to today's decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation," the president said.
What happens now?
The matter will return to US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan. She will have to decide which parts of the case can stand, and which parts will need to be thrown out.
The timeline is unclear, but Dr Wofford warns: "I can say with 100 per cent certainty you're not going to see a quick resolution of this case in any way, shape, or form."
The judge will need to give both sides an opportunity to file briefs, and they may need to argue in front of her in person in Washington DC, Dr Wofford says.
If Trump is elected president on November 5, he has indicated he will make sweeping new appointments across the government, including in the Justice Department, who would likely drop the case. He could also potentially pardon himself.
"Come November, if President Trump is re-elected the president of the United States, these charges go away," Dr Wofford says.
"And that's the end of it right there."
ABC/AP
