LIVE UPDATES
Supreme Court live updates: Biden set to deliver remarks on SCOTUS ruling
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 will affect 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.
Latest headlines:
Trump argues decision 'should end all' cases against him
Trump spoke about the ruling in another post on his social media platform arguing that the Supreme Court's decision "should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me."
The former president specifically cited his Manhattan hush-money case, in which Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. He is slated to be sentenced this month in the hush-money case.
Trump also cited the New York attorney general civil case against his businesses' fraudulent practices and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
Barrett disagrees with ruling's stance on evidence
Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority on the presidential immunity case, she dissented on a section of the ruling that limits what evidence can be used against a president at trial.
Barrett brought up a hypothetical situation of a bribery case against a president, arguing while there are clear federal laws that prohibit the commander in chief from accepting bribes, excluding evidence would "hamstring the prosecution."
"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," she wrote in her concurring opinion.
"I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury ... But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis," Barrett added.
-ABC News' Katherine Faulders
Trump fundraises off immunity ruling
Former President Donald Trump's campaign sent out an email fundraising off the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
"BREAKING FROM TRUMP: Supreme Court gives TOTAL IMMUNITY for official acts!" Trump campaign's fundraising email said.
"Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted - BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY &; OUR CONSTITUTION!" the fundraising email continues, calling the case a "witch hunt" and saying it "should've never happened."
-ABC News' Soorin Kim
Jackson argues ruling 'breaks new and dangerous ground'
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent in the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling arguing it "breaks new and dangerous ground."
"So, how does this new Presidential accountability model work? An initial problem is the lack of clarity regarding what this new model entails," she wrote.
Jackson added that the ruling "unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress."
Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents. Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.