What Does The Supreme Court Decision Mean For Former President Trump?

According to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, the recent decisions by the Supreme Court regarding immunity was a major victory for former President Donald Trump.

On Monday, The Supreme Court ruled that presidents are entitled to have immunity for “official acts” while in office.  The 6-3 decision by the court was a major blow to Special Counsel Jack Smith who now has to go back to the lower courts and argue whether or not former President Trump’s actions were considered “official acts” while president and may be covered by immunity protection.

“The court did not go with absolute immunity on everything but did say there is absolute immunity when it comes to core constitutional powers,” Turley said during an interview with America’s Newsroom co-host Dana Perino and guest co-host Bret Baier. “We’re still going through the opinion to see if there is any assistance on where that line is to be drawn. This case is going to have to go back to the district court, which is going to have to try to thread this needle to determine what in the case would not fall under these protections, but this is obviously a win for President Trump in the sense that the special counsel was arguing, as with the lower court, that there was very little immunity here to be concerned with.”

WATCH:

“The counsel for the government was assuring the court that they really didn’t have much to be concerned with here in terms of any changes in the status of the case. That’s clearly not what won the day.” Turley said. “The court here is saying we do need lines here, drawn to protect presidents so they have some breathing room, and you have to sort of wonder how the context affected the justices. If they want to look at the implications of leaving presidents without protection, they just need to look around the country.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith got a grand jury indictment against former President Trump in Washington D.C. relating to his actions after the results of the 2020 election were determined.

“Even though Manhattan was not a federal case, it was a political prosecution in the view of many of us that was rather raw and open,” Turley said offering his opinion. “And so this is a context that must have concentrated the minds of these justices as they did what Justice Gorsuch said, and try to write for the ages, to have something not for this case but for future cases and future presidents.”