Trump called the ruling a "big win for our constitution and democracy."
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Donald Trump's sweeping claim of "absolute" immunity from criminal prosecution in his federal election subversion case, but said former presidents are entitled to some protections for "official" acts taken while in the White House.
The ruling affects whether Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing.
The justices are sending the case back to the trial court to determine what acts alleged in Smith's indictment constitute official duties that could be protected from liability and which are not.
President Joe Biden will deliver remarks on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling this evening from the White House at 7:45 p.m. ET.
Biden is returning to the White House from Camp David, where his family, including first lady Jill Biden, son Hunter Biden and their grandchildren have been for a pre-scheduled gathering.
While both the conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices agreed its ruling has far-reaching implications for the future of the presidency, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the impact would be chilling.
"Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today's decision are stark," she wrote. "The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding," she said in her dissent.
Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson described the majority's threshold for deciding immunity on a case-by-case basis as complicated and convoluted. The model they laid out, she said, could leave presidents feeling more emboldened to act unlawfully.
"Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when -- if ever -- a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act 'manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority, they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike," she wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against the liberal dissents, saying they "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."
"Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. Accounting for that reality -- and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives."
-ABC News' Alexandra Hutzler
In their dissents, both justices Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder -- including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder -- including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
When the president "uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor said in her dissent. "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune."
ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said on ABC News Live Monday that she agreed with the dissenting opinion that ordering the hypothetical assassination could be considered immune from criminal prosecution.
"In terms of the application of this immunity to very extreme scenarios like ordering an assassination, I'm not sure the majority successfully explains why this rule would not shield that kind of conduct if it's engaged in an official capacity, even if it's wildly wrong and dangerous and destructive," she said. "If that conduct is done in official capacity, I think the dissent is right on this opinion's own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case."
The SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case in April.
Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.
"I'm going to give you a chance to say ... if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him -- is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" she asked during oral arguments.
"It would depend on the hypothetical," Sauer answered. "We could see that could well be an official act."
-ABC News' Meredith Deliso and Alexandra Hutzler
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, released a statement about the ruling stating, "As President Biden has said, nobody is above the law."
"That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works. We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down," Sams added.
-ABC News' Selina Wang
