Highlights: Supreme Court sends Trump’s immunity case back to a lower court in Washington

Anti-Trump influencers and meme accounts on social media are reacting to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling by suggesting Biden should take advantage.

Social media posts darkly joked that Biden should pack the courts, imprison Trump or postpone the November election, shielded by his newfound presidential immunity. Others made reference to “King Biden” or shared images depicting the president in a crown.

Rick Wilson, co-founder of the anti-Trump organization The Lincoln Project, posted on the social platform X to “thank the Supreme Court for granting Joe Biden godlike official powers.”

“I think his first step should be to declare all Trump golf courses as protected Federal wildlife preserves and seize them by eminent domain…it’s an official act, so it’s cool, right?” Wilson wrote.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement after Monday’s immunity ruling that the Supreme Court had “gone rogue with its decision, violating the foundational American principle that no one is above the law.”

The Democratic congresswoman from California said the decision further erodes the court’s credibility “in the eyes of all those who believe in the rule of law.”

For future presidents, the immunity ruling is an “open invitation to abuse power,” said Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy programs at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

“This is much worse than I expected, than I was even contemplating as an outcome,” she said, adding that the decision gives “virtual king-like immunity for the president.”

Weiser said Justice Samuel Alito should have recused himself from the case after his flag controversy. She said his decision-making vote on a section of the ruling relating to how prosecutors can use evidence shows his participation made a difference.

“I think the absence of recusal was not just a misjudgment but a miscarriage of justice, and I think that we can see here that it was consequential,” Weiser said.

Presidential power has been dramatically expanding for half a century — and the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling falls in line with that trend, said Leah Wright Rigueur, a history professor at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

Still, she said, the Supreme Court’s punt to lower courts on the question of which actions are in a president’s official capacity leaves some potential for the absolute power of the presidency to be checked.

“I know the Trump people are crowing about this and saying yes, yes, we won, we won, this is a victory,” she said. “It’s actually not a victory. It’s a pass-off.”

The Supreme Court has kicked several rulings back to lower courts lately — a sign that some members of the court are still concerned about the appearance of impartiality and objectivity, she said.

The high court’s conservative majority accused the liberal justices who dissented of “fear-mongering” and striking a “tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”

The majority said the dissenters in the immunity case “overlook” the concern that presidents will be restrained from “boldly and fearlessly” carrying out their official duties out of fear that they could be subject to prosecution.

The majority opinion noted that presidents are routinely criticized for not sufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law. “An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration” could allege the previous president broke the law, it said.

“Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid.”

“We can’t count on the Supreme Court or any institution to hold him responsible. It’s going to be up to the voters in November,” Harry Dunn, a former police officer who defended the U.S. Capitol against rioters on Jan. 6, said on a Monday conference call organized by President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign.

On the same call, New York Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman said Trump will see the ruling “as a personal get out of jail free card.”

“He does not care about this country, he does not care about the American people,” Goldman said. “He cares solely about himself.”

The Biden campaign began fundraising off the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling within a few hours of the decision.

A new fundraising email called on Biden supporters to “hold Trump accountable” because “our democracy and ALL of our fundamental rights hang in the balance.”

“The Supreme Court just granted Donald Trump breathtaking immunity from prosecution,” the email read. “If Trump wins again, he’ll be even more dangerous and unhinged because he knows the courts won’t hold him back.”

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts chided the lower courts for their quick decisions on the consequential case and for not analyzing whether Trump’s conduct detailed in the indictment was official or unofficial.

“Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, and the very significant constitutional questions that it raises, the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis,” Roberts wrote.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in her ruling in December said the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

Washington’s federal appeals court similarly rejected Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity two months later. In that ruling, the appeals court said any immunity that may have protected Trump while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.

The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it all but certain that Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election.

In a 6-3 ruling, the justices said former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official acts but do not have immunity for unofficial acts. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether core aspects of the indictment are unofficial versus official, and therefore potentially shielded from prosecution.

▶ Read more about the ruling and what comes next.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries pledged Monday that the party will respond to the high court’s ruling with “aggressive oversight and legislative activity” if Democrats win back the majority in November.

“The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a democracy governed by the rule of law and the consent of the American people,” Jeffries said in a statement. “They did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity.”

President Joe Biden’s campaign said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling “doesn’t change the facts” about the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

“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,” the campaign said. “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 onto power for himself.”

The campaign accused the former president of growing “more unhinged” since the 2021 attack and said Biden will make sure Americans reject Trump’s quest for power “for good” this November.

One especially notable piece of the majority opinion came in Chief Justice John Roberts’ analysis of what presidents can do: “The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

That’s a big deal given that attorneys general, including the current one, Merrick Garland, wear their independence from the president as a professional point of pride.

When it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s turn to pronounce the dissent, she gave a dramatic speech.

At the outset, she carefully pronounced the words: “Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.”

She paused at certain moments and at others strongly pronounced each word. In one jab at the conservative majority, Sotomayor cited some of the founding fathers and said, “Interesting, history matters, right?”

Then she looked at the courtroom audience and concluded, “Except here.”

In another dramatic rebuke, Sotomayor said, “Ironic, isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them.”

At times, Sotomayor shook her head and gritted her team as she criticized the majority’s conclusions as “utterly indefensible” and later as elevating the president to “a king above the law.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer denounced Monday’s ruling as “a disgraceful decision,” made with the help of the three justices that Trump appointed himself.

“It undermines SCOTUS’s credibility and suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today,” the New York Democrat said on the social platform X.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a separate concurrence saying that he believed Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was illegitimate and that the case therefore violates “our constitutional structure.”

No other justice signed onto that opinion, but the question took center stage in recent arguments in a separate case against Trump charging him in Florida with illegally hoarding classified documents.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal called the Supreme Court’s ruling a “cravenly political decision,” meant to shield Trump with a “legal armor that no other citizen enjoys.”

“This is a license for authoritarianism,” the Connecticut lawmaker said in a statement Monday.

David Becker, an election law expert and the executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, called the breadth of immunity granted to Trump “incredibly broad” and “deeply disturbing.”

“Almost anything that a president does with the executive branch is characterized as an official act,” he said on a call with reporters following the ruling. “I think putting aside this particular prosecution, for any unscrupulous individual holding the seat of the Oval Office who might lose an election, the way I read this opinion is it could be a road map for them seeking to stay in power.”

Becker said even historic scandals such as Watergate could be seen differently given the ruling.

“It’s likely that Gerald Ford did not need to pardon Richard Nixon under the interpretation of presidential immunity that this court enunciates today,” he said.

Becker lamented the time the Supreme Court took with the ruling, saying Americans had an interest in knowing the result sooner given Trump’s candidacy in the upcoming presidential election.

Justice Clarence Thomas had rocked back in his chair and covered his face with his hands as the first three opinions were read on Monday.

But as Chief Justice John Roberts began reading the majority opinion in the Trump case, Thomas leaned forward and placed his glasses on.

He remained looking forward, peering at the bench in front of him as the majority and dissenting opinions were read.

The Supreme Court has adjourned until the first Monday in October.

One area of the indictment that the court’s conservative majority said was especially off-limits for prosecution was Trump’s communications with the Justice Department.

The indictment alleges that Trump demanded that the Justice Department investigate alleged voter fraud and actively contemplated installing as acting attorney general a loyalist who would pursue his baseless claims of election misconduct.

But the justices said those interactions clearly and indisputably fall within the realm of a president’s official duties.

Trump’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr. called the Supreme Court’s ruling “solid” in a post on the social platform X, but said he doubts this is the end of his father’s federal legal challenges.

“I’m sure the corrupt prosecutors and DC judge will work overtime to continue their lawfare,” he wrote. “It’s all they have left.”

The majority also found that the immunity they recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities, setting what appears to be a high bar for determining what conduct could potentially be prosecuted.

“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives,” Roberts wrote. “Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.”

The opinion found Trump is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for alleged conduct involving discussions with the Justice Department.

Trump is also “at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Pence to reject certification of the vote, Roberts wrote.

The majority did reject Trump’s arguments that the indictment should be dismissed, and that impeachment is a necessary step in the enforcement of the law.

The Supreme Court kept a hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts in challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. The cases are among several this term in which the justices are wrestling with standards for free speech in the digital age.

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now known as X, to cut then-President Donald Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

▶ Read more about today’s social media rulings.

The court directed a fact-finding analysis on one of the more striking allegations in the indictment — that Trump participated in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Democrat Joe Biden who would falsely assert that Trump had instead done so. Both sides had dramatically different interpretations as to whether that could be construed as official acts, and the conservative justices said determining which party is correct would require additional analysis at the trial court level.

Trump posted on his social media network shortly after the decision was released: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the ruling.

The Supreme Court directed U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to assess whether core aspects of the indictment are official acts and therefore shielded from immunity or are not official acts and therefore potentially subject to prosecution. Those include, among other things, Trump’s hectoring of Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the electoral votes — a core feature of the four-count indictment.

The court’s decision in a second major Trump case this term, along with its ruling rejecting efforts to bar him from the ballot because of his actions following the 2020 election, underscores the direct and possibly uncomfortable role the justices are playing in the November election.

▶ Read more about the ruling in the Corner Post case.

Chief Justice John Roberts declined an invitation to meet with Democratic senators in May to talk about Supreme Court ethics and the controversy over flags that flew outside homes owned by Justice Samuel Alito.

Roberts’ response came a day after Alito separately rejected demands that he recuse himself from major Supreme Court involving former President Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 rioters because of the flags, which are like those carried by rioters at the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Both Alito and an another conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, have rejected calls to recuse themselves from cases related to the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Thomas’ wife, Ginni, supported efforts to overturn the election results.

The justices puzzled during arguments April 25 over where the line should be drawn, and though it seemed unlikely from their questions that they’ll adopt Trump’s views of absolute immunity, they did seem potentially poised to narrow the case.

One option would be to send it back to the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, for her to determine which allegations in the indictment constitute official acts and must therefore be stricken from the case — and which do not.

That kind of analysis could be time-consuming and result in additional delays, though by the same token, a more slender set of allegations could make the case easier for special counsel Jack Smith and his team to prosecute and eat up less time on the election-year clock.

In April, the Supreme Court heard more than 2 1/2 hours worth of arguments on the landmark question of whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Some of the many notable moments included:

• Talk of drone strikes and presidential bribes
• Historic callbacks, with frequent invocations of the nation’s Founding Fathers
• The 2024 election was the proverbial elephant in the room

▶ Read more key takeaways from oral arguments.

The justices also have three other cases remaining on the docket Monday, including another major case over social media laws in Texas and Florida that would limit how platforms regulate content posted.

Both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right.

The immunity case was the last case argued, on April 25. So in one sense, it’s not unusual that it would be among the last decided. But the timing of the court’s resolution of Trump’s immunity may be as important as the eventual ruling.

By holding on to the case until early July, the justices have reduced, if not eliminated, the chance that Trump will have to stand trial before the November election, no matter what the court decides.

In other epic court cases involving the presidency, including the Watergate tapes case, the justices moved much faster. Fifty years ago, the court handed down its decision forcing President Richard Nixon to turn over recordings of Oval Office conversations just 16 days after hearing arguments.

Even this term, the court reached a decision in less than a month to rule unanimously for Trump that states cannot invoke the post-Civil War insurrection clause to kick him off the ballot over his refusal to accept Democratic President Joe Biden’s victory four years ago.

▶ Read more about the stakes of the Trump immunity ruling.

In the last 10 days of June, on a frenetic pace of its own making, the Supreme Court touched a wide swath of American society in a torrent of decisions on abortion, guns, the environment, health, the opioid crisis, securities fraud and homelessness.

And, with the court meeting for the final time this term on Monday, an unusual push into July, the most anticipated decision of the term awaits: whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The court also will decide whether state laws limiting how social media platforms regulate content posted by their users violate the Constitution.

▶ Read more about what to expect as the Supreme Court term wraps.