Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke with the Supreme Court on its ruling in the case of former President Donald Trump's immunity claims.
The court finally ruled on presidential immunity Monday, issuing a 6-3 decision that agreed former presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts but not for unofficial acts. The decision came more than nine weeks after the case was argued before the justices and was the final ruling this term.
The Supreme Court's decision overturns the February appeals court ruling that rejected Trump's immunity claims. The three-judge panel for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. found that immunity does not apply to Trump because he is no longer president. Judge Tanya Chutkan, the district judge overseeing the case, had also denied Trump's request earlier this year.
In a concurring opinion, Barrett, a Trump appointee, said that while she agreed with the court's opinion at large, she disagreed with one part of the ruling that held the Constitution prevents protected conduct from being introduced as evidence in a criminal prosecution against a former president, siding with the bench's three liberals instead.
"I disagree with that holding; on this score, I agree with the dissent," Barrett wrote. "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable."
"To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President's criminal liability," the justice said.
Trump—the first former president to ever face criminal charges—has claimed in his federal election interference case that presidential immunity shields him from prosecution over anything related to his presidency.
Trump is also facing criminal charges in a federal classified documents case and a separate election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia. On May 30, a Manhattan jury found him guilty on 34 felony counts in his hush money payment case in New York.
The fight over Trump's "absolute immunity" claim has stalled the trial in the federal election interference case, which was scheduled to begin March 4. Monday's ruling is anticipated to impact Trump's other federal case and the case in Fulton County. It does not change the verdict in Manhattan.
Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court late last year to quickly rule on Trump's immunity claims so that the trial could move faster, but the justices rejected the request and forced the question to go through normal federal judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court had signaled in April that it was prepared to side with the presumptive Republican nominee on some of his immunity claims, with conservative justices on the bench expressing concern during oral arguments that federal criminal laws could be used to target political opponents if former presidents are not protected by immunity. But the court also left open the possibility that Trump's trial could still go forward because the charges were related to his private conduct, rather than his official conduct.
On Monday, Barrett said while she appreciated the court's concern that allowing non-prosecutorial evidence into Trump's trial could prejudice the jury, "the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis."
Using a hypothetical bribery prosecution, Barrett argued that it would "hamstring the prosecution" if the Justice Department were not allowed to mention any official acts related to a bribery charge against a former president.
"The balance is more likely to favor admitting evidence of an official act in a bribery prosecution, for instance, than one in which the protected conduct has little connection to the charged offense. And if the evidence comes in, the trial court can instruct the jury to consider it only for lawful purposes," Barrett wrote. "I see no need to depart from that familiar and time-tested procedure here."
Both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have faced calls to recuse themselves from the case. Thomas' wife, Ginni, is a conservative activist who urged Trump's chief of staff to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Alito's wife, Martha Ann, reportedly flew an upside-down flag—a symbol embraced by the "Stop the Steal" movement—days before Joe Biden's inauguration. Neither stepped aside in the immunity case.
Update 07/01/24, 11:17 a.m. ET: This story was updated with additional information.
About the writer
Katherine Fung is a Newsweek reporter based in New York City. Her focus is reporting on U.S. and world politics. ... Read more
