The Supreme Court ruled Monday that presidents have "at least presumptive immunity" for all official acts, a decision that significantly impacts the ongoing legal battles involving former President Donald Trump. In a 6-3 decision, the court stated that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their constitutional authority and presumptive immunity for all official acts.

The decision stalls Special Counsel Jack Smith's attempts to bring Trump to trial before the 2024 election. Smith had indicted Trump on charges related to his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. The allegations include conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction, and conspiracy against rights, asserting that Trump knowingly spread false claims about the election being stolen.

According to Brianna Lyman of The Federalist, the high court's ruling emphasized the separation of powers and the extent of presidential authority. The court noted:

"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 Supreme Court's ruling remands several aspects of the case back to lower courts to determine if they qualify as official acts. These include Trump's discussions with Justice Department officials and his conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence about certifying the electoral results.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, clarified that immunity does not extend to areas where presidential authority is shared with Congress and prohibited courts from inquiring into the President's motives. Roberts wrote:

"Courts must refrain from delving into the President's motives for actions taken within his official capacity. The constitutional separation of powers dictates this restraint to preserve the executive's autonomy."

The government alleged that Trump intended to use the Department of Justice to investigate voter fraud and pressured acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. However, the court found that Trump "is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."

Regarding Trump's discussions with Pence, the court found "Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct." This issue was remanded to the district court to "assess" whether Trump’s actions "would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."

The Supreme Court also remanded the question regarding the preparation of contingent electors back to the lower court. Trump argued that "the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, concurring in part, noted that presidents are "entitled to an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s ruling." As she explained:

"A criminal defendant in federal court normally must wait until after trial to seek review of the trial court’s refusal to dismiss charges. … But where trial itself threatens certain constitutional interests, we have treated the trial court’s resolution of the issue as a ‘final decision’ for purposes of appellate jurisdiction."

Barrett’s concurrence suggests that if the lower court finds one of Trump's actions still in question is an unofficial act and not immune from prosecution, Trump can appeal the decision back to the Supreme Court before proceedings can continue.

Smith's indictment of Trump includes charges that he knowingly spread false claims about the 2020 election. Smith argues that Trump should have believed agencies like the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which told him the election was not stolen. Trump’s defense is based on the argument that presidents are immune from criminal prosecutions for acts within their official responsibilities unless impeached and convicted by Congress.

Former federal prosecutor Will Scharf explained for The Federalist that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision means that some allegations against Trump must be reexamined in the lower court, while others are outright rejected due to immunity. This decision further delays Smith's case against Trump, making a preelection trial increasingly unlikely.

On Friday, the Supreme Court effectively shot down two of Smith’s four charges against Trump after ruling in Fischer v. United States that the DOJ inappropriately used federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c) to prosecute individuals who demonstrated at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Despite this setback, Smith has indicated he would continue to pursue a conviction against Trump even if the high court ruled against the DOJ’s application of the statute.

Brianna Lyman, an elections correspondent at The Federalist, highlights the significant impact of this ruling on the legal proceedings against Trump and the broader implications for presidential immunity and the separation of powers.