LIVE UPDATES
Supreme Court live updates: 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 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:
View from Trump's legal world ahead of today's ruling
While Trump's team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why's that?
Trump's lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it's not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case's future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump's lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump's lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
-ABC News' Katherine Faulders
'Disturbing': What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
"It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court," said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. "I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable."
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
"The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I've ever heard at the Supreme Court," he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
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.
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.