The Supreme Court grants victory to Trump, ruling that he has immunity for some acts on the charge of election interference

Prosecutors will also have the opportunity to refute the suggestion that Trump’s contacts with Pence are protected. That determination would depend on whether prosecuting Trump for these actions “would pose any danger of intrusion into the authority and functions of the executive branch,” Roberts wrote.

In addressing contacts with state election officials, Roberts wrote that the president has “broad power to speak on matters of public concern,” including the conduct of elections. On the other hand, the president “plays no role” in certifying elections by states, he added. Chutkan needs to conduct a “detailed analysis” of the indictment to determine whether Trump’s actions are protected, Roberts said.

In another blow to Smith, the court ruled that none of the conduct from which Trump is immune can be admitted as evidence at trial in any form.

The court’s three liberal justices vigorously dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, fundamental to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”

The Constitution, she added, “does not protect a former president from being held accountable for criminal acts and treason.”

She warned that the decision could have broad ramifications, protecting presidents for a wide range of actions.

“Let the president break the law, let him exploit the trappings of office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends,” Sotomayor wrote. “Because if he knew that one day he might be held accountable for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That’s the message from the majority today.”

In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the ruling as a “five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance.”

Even if the new process doesn’t take long, there is little chance the trial will end before election day. It had previously been suggested that a trial would not begin until at least three months after the High Court’s ruling, meaning it would potentially not begin until early October at the earliest. The trial itself can last up to 12 weeks.

The case brought national attention to the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three Trump-appointed justices. The court gave Trump a boost for the election year when it ruled in March that Colorado could not kick him off the ballot.

The judges were also criticized for their delay in accepting Trump’s appeal, which some considered a victory for him as it meant the trial could not take place in March as initially planned.

Legally speaking, the case was unprecedented, as no president had ever been prosecuted after leaving office. Therefore, the court was grappling with a legal question that had never been before it: whether a president has some form of immunity for his fundamental duties derived from the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which delineates the powers of the presidency in relation to to other branches of government.

The legal discussion focused on Trump’s official acts, with both sides agreeing that a former president does not have immunity for personal conduct.

The Supreme Court intervened after a federal appeals court ruled on February 6 that Trump was not immune from prosecution, saying that once he left office he would become a “Citizen Trump” and should be treated as any other criminal defendant. The Justice Department has long maintained that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.

The appeal court did not analyze which of the conduct contained in the accusation, if any, could be considered an official act, a fact that seemed to irritate some of the judges during the oral arguments.

Trump’s lawyers pointed to a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that endorsed presidential immunity from civil suits when the underlying conduct concerns actions within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities.

Smith’s team argued that there is no broad immunity that prevents former presidents from being prosecuted for criminal acts committed in office.

The federal indictment returned by a grand jury in Washington in August consisted of four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights, specifically the right to vote.

In another case related to January 6, the court on Friday reduced the scope of the law that penalizes obstruction of an official process. Trump also faces that charge, but legal experts say Friday’s ruling may not affect his case.

Trump, the indictment states, conspired to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using deliberately false claims of voter fraud to obstruct the governmental function through which those results are collected, counted and certified.”

The indictment centers on Trump’s involvement in a scheme to send false election certificates to Congress in hopes that they would overturn President Joe Biden’s victory. The chain of events culminated in the riot at the US Capitol on January 6.

Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, says he was simply expressing concerns, which were not based on any evidence, that the election was marred by widespread fraud. The case is one of four criminal trials Trump currently faces.