LANSING ? Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for exercising their core constitutional powers, and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts.? The Court has tasked the lower Courts to review the pending cases and apply its holding to the various crimes of which former President Trump is accused.?

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel released the following statement in response to today?s decision:?

?President Trump?s unprecedented actions on January 6th were an insidious effort to undermine the U.S. Constitution he took an oath to uphold, a direct attack against American democracy, and certainly not an official act of the Presidency. He attacked our founding values in an effort to maintain power for himself. Regardless of which cabinet cronies he pleaded or conspired with in doing so, it was not Constitutionally protected activity of an American President, but a damnable, contemptible, and criminal strike at the soul of our nation.?

?The following inscription stands above the sixteen marble columns flanking the entrance to the United States Supreme Court: ?Equal Justice Under Law.? Those words stand as a promise to every American citizen that before the court we are all equal. Today?s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court undercuts the foundation of that promise and our nation. It sends the message that the President of the United States may stand above the law and may be able to skirt justice. In this matter, such a message undermines one of the cornerstones of our democracy ? a peaceful transition of power.?

?Still worse is the Court?s holding that the official acts of a president may not be admitted in evidence at a criminal trial, even when they are relevant to unofficial acts of which the former president is accused. The majority has bent over backwards to shield former President Trump from any consequences of his crimes.?

?It is incumbent to the rule of law and the future of our great nation that the district court holds that Trump?s efforts to cling to power ? in defiance of the results of the election ? were not official acts of the office of the Presidency, but the personal acts of a desperate want-to-be King. It is not the official role of any President to ignore the results of free and fair elections in favor of their own preference to stay in office, or to try to improperly influence state and federal officials to assist in that, or to incite his followers to insurrection.?

?In a truly equal nation, no one is above the law, or immune from it.??

Justice Sotomayor opened her dissent by noting that this decision ?makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ?bold and unhesitating action? by the President . . . the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.?

?

###