Live updates: Supreme Court rules Trump has presumptive criminal immunity for official acts

The justices are scheduled to meet for one last conference on Monday before heading out on their summer recess.

At their weekly conferences, the justices vote on cases to take up and other various matters related to pending cases. No clerks or staff attend, only the nine justices.

The court listed nearly 70 petitions to take up cases for Monday’s conference, according to The Hill’s analysis of court dockets.

It is commonly known as the “cleanup conference,” as the justices are poised to clear out a series of petitions that have remained in limbo for months as the court mulled a decision in a closely related case.

Here’s what we’re watching:

Felon-in-possession law: The Biden administration is urging the court to take up whether the federal law that makes it a crime for felons to possess guns violates the Second Amendment, rather than send a series of petitions back to lower courts for a second look after their recent gun rights decision.

OSHA challenge: The court is weighing whether to take up a constitutional challenge to the setup of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Section 230: An anonymous student who was allegedly groomed by his high school science teacher on Snapchat and later sexually assaulted could give the court a chance to take a look at the scope of Section 230, the controversial liability shield for internet companies.

Texas age-verification law: The justices are weighing whether to take up an ACLU-backed constitutional challenge to Texas’s law requiring age verification for porn websites.

The court is expected to hand down an order list at 9:30 a.m. EDT on Tuesday.

— Zach Schonfeld

A number of Republicans have issued rebukes to Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Trump’s immunity case – from lawmakers to other political types.

Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany, who served as Trump’s White House press secretary, called the justice’s dissent “apoplectic, hyperbolic.”

Sotomayor detailed scenarios in which a president could presumably be immune from prosecution when executing official acts including assassinating a political rival, something Trump’s team argued would be covered by presidential immunity.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) meanwhile called Sotomayor’s dissent “foolish in every way.”

“The Supreme Court’s dissent in this case is foolish in every way, particularly Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson’s argument that this decision allows a president to assassinate their opponent,” Graham said in a statement. “The liberal members of the Court and the Left have lost their minds when it comes to President Trump.”

President Biden’s principal deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks said Monday that he’s “scared as s‑‑‑” after the Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump has presumptive criminal immunity for official acts.

“I’m scared as s‑‑‑ and I think Americans are scared and should be scared of what Donald Trump will do, because he has been telling us for months,” Fulks said. “And so I can reassure you that when you do see President Biden out on the trail, he will be talking about the reasons why Americans should be scared of Donald Trump as he has been for months, and this Supreme Court opinion today just amplified that.”

Read more here.

— Alex Gangitano

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called it “disgraceful” that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito did not recuse themselves from the immunity decision. 

Durbin has been engaged in a lengthy battle with them over ethics at the court, his criticism centering on the actions of their wives around Jan. 6, 2021. Virginia Thomas was involved in the “Stop the Steal” effort to overturn the 2020 election, while Martha-Ann Alito hung an upside-down American flag at their home during the days surrounding the Capitol attack. 

“Relatedly, it is disgraceful that Justices Thomas and Alito brazenly refused to recuse themselves from this case,” Durbin said in a statement, adding that “the appearance of impropriety or partiality” should prompt recusal. 

“Until Chief Justice Roberts uses his existing authority to enact an enforceable code of conduct, I will continue to push to pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act,” he added, referring to the Democratic ethics bill authored by him and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

— Al Weaver

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) announced Monday that she will soon file impeachment articles against at least one justice on the Supreme Court. 

Ocasio-Cortez, a prominent liberal on the House Oversight Committee, said the immunity ruling belies a central premise of America’s constitutional design — namely, that no one is above the law — and threatens to put the country on a path to tyranny.

“Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture,” she wrote on X. “I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”

READ MORE HERE.

— Mike Lillis

Capitol Hill Democrats are hammering the Supreme Court on Monday over its decision to grant immunity to presidents for “official” acts, saying it will empower future commanders in chief to break the law with impunity. 

“This decision by the Supreme Court today is a travesty and perhaps the most dangerous judicial opinion from our Supreme Court in generations,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said. “By smooth and naive legalese, these partisan justices have created a framework for a President to commit any acts he or she chooses. … This opinion is nothing less than a blueprint for a lawless dictator to take root in the Oval Office of the White House.”

Other Democrats issued similarly stark warnings. 

“Today is a dark day for American Democracy,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), a former federal prosecutor. “The Supreme Court’s ruling gives expansive immunity to a corrupt president who purports to use acts within his official authority to conspire to overturn a lawful election.”

READ MORE HERE.

— Mike Lillis and Mychael Schnell

Former Attorney General Eric Holder blasted Monday’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, writing that “democracy has been gravely wounded.”

Holder, who served under the Obama administration, called the decision “absurd and dangerous,” in a post on social platform X.

The decision determined that presidents have absolute immunity for actions that fall within the core responsibilities of their office and are presumptively immune for all other official acts.

“There is no basis in the Constitution for this Court constructed monstrosity,” he added.

— Rebecca Beitsch

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) panned Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the immunity case, labeling it “foolish in every way” and arguing that the Court’s liberals have “lost their minds” regarding Trump.

Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that future presidents could order Seal Team 6 to “assassinate a political rival,” stage a military coup to keep power or swap a bribe for pardon and be considered immune after the ruling.

Graham took particular issue with that framing.

“The Supreme Court’s dissent in this case is foolish in every way, particularly Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson’s argument that this decision allows a president to assassinate their opponent,” he said in a statement. “The liberal members of the Court and the Left have lost their minds when it comes to President Trump.”

— Al Weaver

Justice Sotomayor said the Supreme Court’s decision granting former President Trump “completely insulate[s] presidents from criminal liability” in a forceful dissent issued on Monday.

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Sotomayor wrote in the 30-page dissent, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” her dissent read.

Read more from Rebecca Beitsch and Zach Schonfeld

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 Republican in the upper chamber, said the immunity decision “is another victory for democracy and the rule of law against Democrat lawlessness.”

“Joe Biden and the Democrats are weaponizing the justice system because they know President Trump will beat them in November. President Trump has rightly pursued all legal channels to stop Democrats’ political prosecutions,” he added.

Barrasso is the highest-ranking Senate Republican to publicly comment on the decision so far.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slammed the Supreme Court’s “disgraceful” decision Monday to shield former President Trump’s official acts from prosecution, which will delay his trial on Jan. 6-related charges.

Schumer warned the 6-3 decision “enables the former President to weaken our democracy by breaking the law.”

“This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy. The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president,” he said.

READ MORE HERE.

— Alexander Bolton

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) weighed in on the Supreme Court’s immunity decision Monday to declare victory for Trump and “all future presidents”

“Today’s ruling by the Court is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith,” Johnson wrote.

“The Court clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts. This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the Constitution and common sense. As President Trump has repeatedly said, the American people, not President Biden’s bureaucrats, will decide the November 5th election.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling on former President Trump’s immunity claims will unfreeze his federal election subversion case.

But technically, the case does not get sent back to the lower court until the justices issue their judgment, a formality that would not take place for another 32 days under the Supreme Court’s rules.

The court does, however, have discretion to shorten that time, and the parties could also agree to do so.

When the justices issued their decision declining to disqualify Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, they issued their judgment the same day as the opinion’s release.

— Zach Schonfeld

The former president is also accused of attempting to “enlist” former Vice President Mike Pence to “fraudulently alter the election results.”

Roberts wrote that whenever the president and vice president are discussing official responsibilities, they are engaging in official conduct — and, presiding over the certification of the 2020 presidential election results is a constitutional and statutory duty of the vice president.

“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,” Roberts wrote.

“The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances,” he added, leaving that question for lower courts to decide.

— Ella Lee

In the court’s first case, a regulatory decision over when the statute of limitations begins to challenge federal regulation, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared especially tired from the bench.

When Justice Amy Coney Barrett read her majority opinion in the case she took a kind tone, walking the court through her argument and explaining the history of the statute of limitations and the laws at hand in the case. Thomas sat hunched at his seat, hand clasped over his eyes.

Thomas repeatedly closed his eyes and rocked back in his chair during reading of that decision. During both Barrett’s decision and Jackson’s dissent, the justice removed his glasses and rocked back and forth, as if seated in a rocking chair. Throughout the court’s first two cases, Thomas repeatedly touched his face and held his head in his hand, leaning onto his desk or back in his chair.

The justice appeared notably more attentive during the court’s later cases, particularly during the presidential immunity decision.

— Nick Robertson

In his indictment, Trump is accused of attempting to use the “power and authority” of the Justice Department to “conduct sham election crime investigations.” He allegedly met with the acting attorney general and other senior officials in the DOJ and White House to discuss the matter.

The justices ruled that such conduct falls squarely in Trump’s official duties, since the executive branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute.”

“The President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials,” Roberts wrote.

— Ella Lee

The justices criticized the lower courts for rendering their decisions on a “highly expedited basis,” despite the “unprecedented” nature of the case.

“Determining whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution requires applying the principles we have laid out to his conduct at issue. The first step is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions,” Roberts wrote. “However, no court has thus far considered how to draw that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular.”

Roberts also suggested that, because the lower courts “categorically rejected any form of presidential immunity,” they did not analyze the specific conduct in Trump’s indictment.

“And like the underlying immunity question, that categorization raises multiple unprecedented and momentous questions about the powers of the President and the limits of his authority under the Constitution,” the chief justice wrote, citing another case to remind lower courts that “ours is a court of final review and not first view.”

— Ella Lee

As Roberts read the majority ruling providing for some presidential immunity, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson appeared stern, folding her arms. Prosecutor Michael Dreeben, who argued the case for Special Counsel Jack Smith, furiously wrote notes during Roberts’ decision.

When Sotomayor read her dissent, she repeatedly looked to Roberts while condemning the majority’s opinion. Roberts, attentively reading Sotomayor’s dissent, never looked towards her.

— Nick Robertson

Roberts drew a clear line in the sand as to whether presidential immunity extends beyond official actions.

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity,” Roberts wrote.

“Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct,” he said.

The chief justice pointed to the civil lawsuit Paula Jones brought against then-President Bill Clinton to bolster their determination, noting that the high court “rejected” Clinton’s argument he enjoyed “temporary immunity” from the lawsuit while serving as president.

— Ella Lee

Former President Trump is celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday that ruled former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Truth Social minutes after the decision dropped.

Read more here.

— Lauren Sforza

Senate Republicans and top allies of Trump were quick to praise the immunity decision, hailing it as a key protection for presidents.

“The Supreme Court made the right decision. We must maintain strong presidential immunity protections to ensure our leaders can make tough decisions without fear of political retribution,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said on X.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) argued that the decision was “a crushing blow to Joe Biden’s 4-year witch hunt against President Trump.”

“Trump will wipe the floor with Biden in November,” he said.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) added in a statement that the Court’s ruling “rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump.”

— Al Weaver

The justices have left the bench. The court will next take the bench on the first Monday in October.

— Zach Schonfeld

The chief justice raised concern that a president might wish to take a course of action “based on the public interest,” but would choose to “opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office.”

“And if a former President’s official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, ‘the independence of the Executive Branch’ may be significantly undermined,” he wrote. “The Framers’ design of the Presidency did not envision such counterproductive burdens on the ‘vigor’ and ‘energy’ of the Executive.”

— Ella Lee

After Sotomayor finished reading her dissent, Roberts before adjourning the court until October went through his normal script of recognizing court employees who are retiring. It began with an amusing flub.

“On behalf of my employees,” Roberts began, before correcting himself to say “my colleagues.”

Laughter erupted in the courtroom.

—Zach Schonfeld

Roberts contended that criminal proceedings pose a danger “greater than” civil damages liabilities, from which presidents enjoy immunity.

“Although the President might be exposed to fewer criminal prosecutions than the range of civil damages suits that might be brought by various plaintiffs, the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent,” the chief justice wrote.

“Potential criminal liability, and the peculiar public opprobrium that attaches to criminal proceedings, are plainly more likely to distort Presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages.”

— Ella Lee

President Biden’s reelection campaign said after the ruling that it will still argue that Trump encouraged the riots on Jan. 6 2021 and that he snapped after losing the 2020 race.

“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. 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,” a senior Biden campaign adviser said.

The adviser added, “Since January 6, Trump has only grown more unhinged.”

— Alex Gangitano

Though the trial court will make final determinations on whether Trump has immunity from the specific allegations in his D.C. indictment, the Supreme Court made clear some of the allegations cannot survive.

“Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials,” Roberts wrote.

— Zach Schonfeld

The Supreme Court capped its term by determining core presidential powers are immune from criminal prosecution, a win for former President Trump that returns his federal case involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election back to a lower court to determine whether his actions leading up to Jan. 6 merit the protection. 

In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution — a decision that stopped just short of granting the total immunity sought by Trump, but that nonetheless aids the former president by likely delaying that trial beyond the November election. 

Read more from Rebecca Beitsch and Zach Schonfeld on details of the decision.

Roberts acknowledged that a “limited number” of the high court’s prior decisions helped guide the justices’ determination of presidential immunity in this context.

“That is because proceedings directly involving a President have been uncommon in our Nation, and ‘decisions of the Court in this area’ have accordingly been ‘rare,'” he wrote.

To reach their decision, the justices looked to the “Framers’ design of the Presidency” within the separation of powers, in addition to precedent on presidential immunity in a civil context and criminal cases in which a president resisted prosecutorial demands for documents, he wrote.

— Ella Lee

Some issues of presidential immunity were left undecided by the justices, Roberts wrote.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the chief justice wrote. “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.

“As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity,” he said. “At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.”

— Ella Lee