Three Atlantic writers on the Supreme Court ruling and what it means for the presidency
three Atlantic writers explain the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and what it means for the future of the American presidency.
First, here are four new stories:
Spiking the Football
The Supreme Court released a decision today that grants presidents partial immunity from criminal prosecution. In a 6–3 vote along ideological lines, the justices ruled that a president’s exercise of “core” constitutional powers are protected with “absolute” immunity, their remaining official actions are presumed immune, and unofficial acts are not protected at all. The Court has kicked the case back to the lower courts to decide which parts of Donald Trump’s federal election-interference indictment fall under each category, all but confirming that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s January 6 case will not go to trial before Election Day. Below, three Atlantic writers help you make sense of the ruling and what it means for the future of presidential power in America.
Stephanie Bai: Trump’s team sees the Supreme Court decision as a win, even though the justices rejected his claim to absolute presidential immunity. How do you think Trump and his allies will use this ruling in his campaign and in their rhetoric on the election-interference case?
David A. Graham, staff writer: I was fascinated to see Trump’s campaign immediately label the decision “total immunity.” Maybe that says more about his love of winning than it does about his team’s strategy. I expect we’ll continue to see more of this: He’ll claim that the Supreme Court fully vindicated him, ignoring that the trial court still has much to work out here, and he’ll say this proves the cases against him are just political persecution. We saw a little of this in the debate last week, where he refused to disavow the January 6 insurrection and quickly pivoted to accusing Joe Biden of the “weaponization” of the Justice Department.
I wonder if this is a good idea, though. Polls show that strong majorities of Americans—understandably!—don’t think the president should be fully immune from prosecution (nor do they trust the Supreme Court).
