Free sample of my members-only emails

With the final opinion on the last day of the term, the U.S Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in Trump v. United States — the case in which the indicted former president claimed absolute immunity for crimes he committed while in office.

In a 6-3 vote, the Court gave Trump what he wanted: broad presidential immunity for all official acts. While the Court said that immunity does not apply to unofficial acts, it gave Trump the gift of further delay by sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Not only has Trump’s gambit for delay worked, but if he’s reelected in November, he will have full control of the Department of Justice and be empowered to make the most of it. Plus, there will never be a trial.

To be clear, this is not just a defeat for democracy and the rule of law, but a terrifying reminder of just how dangerous another four years of a Donald Trump presidency would be.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it best: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

For months, members have sent in questions about what this decision means for the cases Trump still faces, the election in November and for our democracy moving forward. I tried to answer the major questions now that we have the decision, but this is not the end of this saga so please continue to send me your questions. We are in this fight for our democracy together.

Members always receive my exclusive analysis when major news breaks — plus answers to their questions. Consider becoming a member for $120/year and you will receive:

• Q&As like this from me, experts and candidates

• My two monthly members-only newsletters

• My weekend reading list

• Breaking news updates with my analysis

• Exclusive merch discount codes and much more!

Democracy Docket relies on support from our readers. With only a few months until the election, your $120 membership will go a long way in ensuring the team can keep you updated through November and beyond.

What exactly did the Court say about presidential immunity?

— Erica

The Court said that presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts in carrying out their constitutional responsibilities and a strong presumption of immunity for all their official acts. They are not immune for their non-official acts.

This puts the Washington, D.C., Jan. 6 indictment in serious jeopardy since it now has to go back down to the trial court, delaying the case even further.

What about Trump’s claim that a president could assassinate his political opponent?

— Richard

A majority of the Supreme Court just said he could — if Trump stages a coup as president and cites any part of the U.S. Constitution as justification, he will be immune from any criminal prosecution.  

Where does this leave his Washington, D.C. indictment? What happens to the other cases?

— Bonnie

Washington, D.C.: This case, which charges Trump with trying to overturn the 2024 election, has been on hold pending the outcome of this appeal, meaning this case has not moved forward in the last few months. Now that we have the decision, the charges against him related to his official acts will be dismissed. The question is whether there are enough non-official acts for the case to go forward. The trial judge will need to hold a hearing and decide. That ruling, of course, can then be appealed.

New York: It should not affect the New York case since almost all the conduct in that case took place before he was president and did not involve any actions by him as president. That said, Trump will likely try to raise the issue in New York to try to delay his sentencing and ultimately to challenge his conviction. I am confident the New York courts will agree with my analysis.

Georgia: The case is currently on hold while the issue between Fulton County DA Fani Willis and the special prosecutor is resolved. But once that is settled, there will have to be a hearing to determine if Trump’s interference in Georgia’s election counts as an official act or not.

Florida: The judge in this case has taken a different tactic with Trump’s immunity claims than the judges in the other cases — she hasn’t decided much in the case and instead keeps holding pre-trial hearings. It’s difficult to see how Trump holding onto classified documents relates to an official presidential act since the issue at hand is that Trump was no longer president. Nevertheless, the judge will likely continue to kick the can down the road.

The bottom line: Trump will use this opinion to claim vindication and force every pending case against him to be reevaluated.

So what counts as an official act? What counts as an unofficial act?

— Joe

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion and said that any correspondence between Trump and his attorney general, acting attorney general or anyone in the federal government counts as an official act since the president would be acting according to his constitutional authority.

What isn’t as clear, however, is whether or not any communication between Trump and Pence about election certification falls within an official act, though this will be hard for the prosecution to argue since certifying elections is a constitutional duty.

The biggest unknown relates to Trump’s interference in states’ election certification. There is no official role for the federal government to play in how Georgia counts ballots or Michigan certifies its results. This could become incredibly important in the Georgia election subversion case where Trump might not be protected by the Court’s ruling.  

Will Trump ever face accountability?

— Ravi

Upgrade now for the answer to this question and to continue receiving members-only Q&As from me and other experts. Plus unlock my two monthly newsletters, weekend reading lists and much more — for $120/year.