Biden says SCOTUS decision sets 'dangerous precedent'
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.
Latest headlines:
5 key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have "absolute immunity" for any "official acts" while in office.
'It makes a mockery of the principle ... that no man is above the law,' Sotomayor says in dissent
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the conservative justices' ruling on former President Donald Trump's immunity case.
Sotomayor contended in her dissent that the ruling "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."
She argued the conservative justices invented "an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law."
"That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President's official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force," she added.
Sotomayor also said the ruling opens up the possibility that when a president uses their official powers in any way, they will be "insulated from criminal prosecution."
"Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune," Sotomayor wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.