Donald Trump's 2-Sentence Response to Supreme Court Ruling

Former President Donald Trump participates in the CNN presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia on June 27, 2024. Trump celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling in his presidential immunity case on Monday.

Former President Donald Trump celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling about whether he has presidential immunity in the Department of Justice election interference case.

The court on Monday ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity for official acts but no immunity for private acts. The court sent the case back to a lower court in Washington, D.C., to figure out how to determine what constitutes an official act.

While Trump may still face trial for some charges in the case that are not deemed official, conservatives are viewing the ruling as a victory. It makes it less likely the case will go to trial before the November election. Legal analysts have said Trump could dismiss the charges in the case if he wins in November.

Trump responded to the ruling in a post to Truth Social, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"

Newsweek reached out to the Department of Justice for comment via email.

The Context

The case, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, focuses on Trump's actions surrounding the riot and his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, such as creating false slates of pro-Trump electors in states he had lost to President Joe Biden.

Trump's attorneys argued that his actions constituted official presidential acts and that he was raising concerns about the election's legitimacy in his official capacity as president. Prosecutors, however, argue that he was acting as a candidate, not a president, at the time.

What We Know

The court handed down the ruling in a 6-3 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by the other conservative justices. Justices Ketanji B. Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

"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," Roberts wrote.

Sotomayor wrote that she dissents "with fear for our democracy," warning about the ruling's implications.

"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop," she wrote.

Reactions

The Biden campaign responded to the ruling in a statement.

"Today's ruling doesn't change the facts, so let's be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election," the statement reads.

"Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he's above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself."

Conservative legal analyst Jonathan Turley said on Fox News, "In reading through this opinion, I can't see how this doesn't induce cardiac arrest in the special counsel." He said the court imposed "a very significant burden on Jack Smith when this goes back to the judge" and that the court gave "much more clear lines than some people expected."

Legal analyst and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman wrote on X, formerly Twitter, "As I read it, no conduct in indictment is clearly not subject to immunity. Everything calls for a "fact-bound' analysis. Is that analysis of the allegations or something more? Even the ellipse speech could turn out [to] be immune.

Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, posted, "Hyper-partisan prosecutors like Jack Smith cannot weaponize the rule of law to go after the Administration's chief political rival, and we hope that the Left will stop its attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms."

What's Next

A lower court will now work to determine which of Trump's alleged crimes constitutes official actions. It remains unclear how long that will take or when Trump's trial may begin.

Update 7/1/24, 11:11 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.

Update 7/1/24, 11:37 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial