The Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity has dismissed a key element of the federal criminal case involving former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. This ruling could potentially exclude additional aspects of the case as well. Here’s a look at how Monday’s ruling might affect the evidence available to prosecutors.
Enlisting U.S. Justice Department
The Supreme Court’s decision prevents prosecutors from presenting evidence that Trump attempted to enlist officials at the U.S. Justice Department in his efforts to remain in power despite losing the election to Joe Biden. In the four-count indictment obtained by Special Counsel Jack Smith in August 2023, the allegations state that Trump sought to replace the acting U.S. attorney general with another official who promised to use the Justice Department to support attempts to thwart congressional certification of Biden’s election victory. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, faces accusations of leading a multi-pronged conspiracy to stay in power. The Supreme Court ruled that Trump is absolutely immune from charges involving his communication with Justice Department officials, as these actions relate to his “core” presidential authority under the U.S. Constitution.
Pressuring Pence
The indictment also alleges that Trump tried to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence to use his role overseeing the congressional certification process to block Biden’s victory. Pence refused. The court found that communications between Trump and Pence would presumptively fall under presidential immunity, excluding them from the case. However, prosecutors can still argue that prosecuting Trump over these discussions would not implicate the president’s authority since the president plays no role in the election certification process. Trial Judge Tanya Chutkan will make an initial decision, with potential appeals following her conclusions.
‘Fake Electors’
Prosecutors allege that Trump and his allies arranged slates of pro-Trump presidential electors in seven battleground states that Trump lost. They did this in a bid to block congressional certification of Biden’s victory, which involved counting legitimate electors from the various states. According to the indictment, the so-called fake electors aimed to give Pence a pretext to reject votes for Biden when Congress convened for the certification of the election outcome on January 6, 2021. The Supreme Court instructed Judge Chutkan to decide which of Trump’s actions in this area were official and deserving of protection and which were private conduct undeserving of immunity.
Jan. 6 Communications
The indictment accuses Trump of inviting his supporters to gather in Washington on the day of the certification vote and urging them to march on the U.S. Capitol in a last-ditch attempt to stop the election certification. Some of his supporters then violently breached the Capitol, attacked police, and forced lawmakers to flee. Prosecutors want to introduce Trump’s social media posts and his speech to supporters before the riot as evidence in the case. The Supreme Court directed Judge Chutkan to examine the context of Trump’s remarks to determine if he made them in his official capacity, thus covering them by immunity.
