Supreme Court rules ‘broad immunity’ in case against Donald Trump, Joe Biden warns of ‘dangerous precedent’

The United States Supreme Court on July 1 ruled that former presidents have "broad immunity" from prosecution, as it extended the delay in a criminal case against Donald Trump, AP reported.

This is the first time the apex court has made such a ruling and likely eliminate all chances of the former president and current Republican candidate being tried ahead of the November 2024 US general elections, it added.

The case in question is a Washington criminal case against Trump on charges that he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential campaign loss.

The Influence of SC Judges In Focus

The SC's conservative majority, in a historic 6-3 ruling, narrowed the case against him and returned it to the trial court. The judges on the bench included the three justices appointed to the Court by Trump during his tenure as president.

The case highlights the SC's impact ahead of the November US elections, the report said. Last week, it hindered efforts to ban Trump from contesting the upcoming elections due to his actions, which led to the Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021, by his supporters after he lost the previous ballot.

The dissenting three judges criticised the ruling for "undermining a core democratic principle that no person is above the law", it added.

Trump, Biden React to News

Trump celebrated with a post on his social media platform Truth Social, where he wrote, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! Today's Historic Decision by the Supreme Court should end all of Crooked Joe Biden's Witch Hunts against me.”

Current US President Joe Biden termed the ruling “a dangerous precedent (that) undermines the rule of this nation.” In a speech at the White House, Biden told reporters: "For all practical purposes today's decision almost certainly means there are no limits to what a president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle, and it's a dangerous precedent."

“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America. Each of us is equal before the law. No one is above it. Not even the President of the United States. With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed,” he further wrote on the social media site X (formerly known as Twitter).

“I will respect the limits of presidential powers that I have for three and a half years. But any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law. I concur with what Justice Sotomayor wrote today: "With fear for our democracy—I dissent". So do I,” Biden wrote in another post on X.

What Did The SC Ruling Say?

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court: “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

The chief justice insisted that the president “is not above the law." But in a fiery dissent for the court's three liberals, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Reading from her opinion in the courtroom, Sotomayor said, “Because our Constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.” Sotomayor said the decision "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law."

The protection afforded presidents by the court, she said, "is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless.”

Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing two Justice Department criminal investigations into Trump, declined to comment on AP's queries after the ruling.

Notably, both a District Court and an appeals court panel had earlier rejected 78-year-old Trump's immunity claims in the case.

(With inputs from AP and AFP)