SCOTUS: All Presidents Have Immunity, Including Trump

In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that President Trump will enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for “official acts” during his time in office just as every other president has been privileged to.

Lower courts have been left in charge of deciding what is and isn’t an “official act” by a sitting president. This is key as President Trump faces allegations of subversion stemming back to 2020.

President Trump took to Truth Social after the decision was handed down, claiming this was a “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the official opinion of the court writing, “the president is not above the law,” and how “not everything the President does is official.”

The 43 page decision read:

“Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties.”

Further to this, Chief Justice Roberts stated:

“Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred whilst Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in part.

Justice Barrett called for more of a limited version of immunity, stating:

“The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power.”

Encounter News contributor and Constitutional Attorney KrisAnne Hall spoke on the ruling stating:

1 Presidents have absolute immunity only for acts pursuant to Article 2
2 Presumptive immunity for “official acts.”
3 No immunity for unofficial acts

PLEASE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE 3 CATEGORIES

Bringing forward a key point that the mainstream neglects to cover, Hall says this ruling doesn’t give President Trump absolute “immunity for all criminal prosecution.”

The three justices who dissented were Justice Sonia Sotomayor who issued the dissent, alongside Justices Elana Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Sotomayor wrote:

“Our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts.”

This ruling could have an effect on the outcome of another case pinned against President Trump as he is simultaneously being accused of criminally attempting “to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit” to obstruct the electoral vote process, “impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified” and working “against the right to vote and to have that vote counted.”

Trump’s team says the former President’s acts were “official,” thus, they are protected by his office.

However, special counsel Jack Smith has argued they are still subject to criminal prosecution.

A decision was handed down last week by SCOTUS which narrowed the use of an obstruction charge in the case; this hasn’t phased prosecutors who are confident the decision won’t prevent them from pursuing their case.

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciate the work we do to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, please consider giving a gift to help us continue this work. Maranatha!