Supreme Court Ruling Today: Is Trump Shielded From Criminal Charges? What To Know About The Ex-President's Immunity Claims

 The Supreme Court is expected to rule Monday whether former President Donald Trump has “immunity” from criminal charges for some actions taken while he was president—a major ruling that could clarify one of the ex-president’s most favored legal defenses, as Trump has claimed he has immunity in all four of the criminal cases against him.

 The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on whether ex-presidents can be criminally prosecuted for conduct that’s alleged to be part of their official duties, as Trump has tried to have the federal case against him for trying to overturn the 2020 election dropped, arguing he’s “immune” since his actions challenging the results were undertaken while he was in the White House.

The ex-president hasn’t had great luck with his immunity defense so far: A panel of appeals court judges refused Trump’s argument, ruling that “former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan declared Trump’s time in office doesn’t give him the “divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens.”

In addition to the federal election case, Trump has also argued his state charges in Georgia should be dropped because he has immunity—making a similar argument to the federal election case—as well as his federal charges over allegedly mishandling classified documents, as he argues he decided to “designate the records [he brought back to Mar-a-Lago] as personal” while still in office.

He also unsuccessfully tried to use the argument to delay his criminal trial earlier this year in New York, asking to pause the trial until the Supreme Court ruled because he believed prosecutors could introduce statements he made in 2018, which Trump argued could be covered by “presidential immunity.”

The DOJ has long held that presidents cannot be criminally indicted while in office—arguing in a memo it “would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch”—and the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents can’t be held liable in civil cases for actions they undertook as part of their official duties, though the high court separately found in Clinton v. Jones that presidents can be sued in civil court for actions taken before they were president.

Whether ex-presidents can face criminal charges for actions they took while in the White House is still unsettled, however, and this will be the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue.

The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday will determine when Trump’s federal election case could go to trial—and if it even will. The case has been on pause while the immunity dispute plays out, and justices’ delay in issuing their ruling over Trump’s immunity has stretched out the potential timeline for the trial. Legal experts have speculated if the Supreme Court rules Trump doesn’t have immunity and the case can immediately move forward, the soonest a trial could start would be October—which would not be soon enough for there to be a verdict by Election Day in November. Justices could also issue a ruling that sends the immunity issue back to the lower courts first before the case can start moving forward again, which would stretch out the proceedings even further. If that happens—which justices signaled at oral arguments could be likely—it may prolong the case long enough that if Trump gets elected president, he could appoint DOJ officials who will drop the charges against him before the trial gets underway.

Trump’s legal argument would “collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches,” the appeals judges wrote in their ruling striking down Trump’s motion to dismiss the federal election case. “Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”


Trump has argued he’s given immunity by the Constitution’s Impeachment Judgment Clause, which suggests judgements in impeachment cases “shall not extend further than to removal from Office.” The DOJ noted that means, in Trump’s view, that “the President may be charged by indictment only in cases where the President has been impeached and convicted by trial in the Senate.” Subjecting presidents to criminal charges would violate the separation of powers between government branches, Trump argued, insisting that impeachment and conviction by the Senate is the “exclusive method of proceeding against a president for crimes in office.” The ex-president has also claimed that opening former presidents up to prosecution would dissuade them from taking necessary actions while in office, and has argued presidents should be able to “cross the line” without being prosecuted—potentially even if they were to order the assassination of a political rival, Trump’s lawyer told the Supreme Court.

Federal district and appeals court judges have ruled against Trump in his civil cases where he’s asserted immunity. Judges ruled civil cases against Trump for allegedly inciting Jan. 6 can move forward despite the Nixon v. Fitzgerald precedent, saying Trump’s efforts to overturn the election and allegedly encourage supporters to riot were not part of his official duties as president. They also rejected Trump’s immunity claims in writer E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against him.