In a split decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that former US presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their constitutional purview, thus clearing a path for Donald Trump to challenge a federal indictment accusing him of conspiring to sabotage the 2020 elections.

The case, US v. Trump, centers on the former president’s alleged conduct on and leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the US Capitol as Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. As tensions escalated, some protesters breached the Capitol, resulting in property damage, clashes with law enforcement, and a significant delay in the certification process. The events raised widespread concerns about the security of democratic processes in the US and led to multiple prosecutions, including another case ruled on by the Supreme Court last week.

In August 2023, Trump was indicted on four counts related to the 2020 elections and the events leading up to Jan. 6. He was accused of having conspired to overturn the results of the election by pressuring electoral officials in swing states, pressuring federal officials to instill doubts in the electorate about the legitimacy of the vote, and ultimately, “exploiting” those of his supporters who had gathered in Washington DC on Jan. 6 “by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification.”

Trump pleaded not guilty and sought to dismiss the charges on grounds of presidential immunity. He asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity shields a former president from criminal prosecution for acts performed on the “outer perimeter” of their official duties.

In its ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court emphasized the imperative of protecting executive functions from the looming threat of prosecution in order to protect the president’s ability to act with agility amid rapidly developing crises. But the ruling specified that only constitutionally mandated presidential functions are protected on this basis, concluding that neither unofficial conduct nor functions shared between the executive and legislative branches are immune to prosecution.

Based on a review of Supreme Court precedent, the majority ruled that presidents must be granted “at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for … acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility,” concluding:

Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’

Importantly, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits of the case. Noting it is a court of final review, and not of first view, it remanded the case to a lower court to determine which of the activities at issue in the case are official, and which are unofficial. The court stated:

Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations— such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions.

The justices were split along partisan lines, with all six justices who were appointed by Republican presidents siding with the majority, and all three justices appointed by Democratic presidents dissenting. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined for all but one part of the majority opinion. Both Thomas and Barrett filed concurrences — the former a full concurrence, the latter a partial one. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson also wrote a dissent.

The majority opinion focused on what it saw as the imperative of protecting the White House’s authority to act “vigorously” and “energetically,” arguing that this was what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind when establishing the balance of executive, legislative, and judicial powers within the government:

The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

Sotomayor warned in her dissent that the majority’s “single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch” came at the cost of the need for accountability and restraint:

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

Trump lauded the decision, writing via his social media platform Truth Social:

BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!

Monday’s ruling was highly anticipated given the political stakes ahead of this year’s presidential election. The November 2024 vote will be historic on several fronts. It marks the first rematch between presidential candidates since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower faced Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1956. At 81 and 77 respectively, incumbent Biden and his adversary Trump are the oldest major party frontrunners in the history of US presidential elections, a significant factor as the majority of Americans believe both candidates are too old to serve. This sentiment was exacerbated by a recent debate where Biden struggled to defend his record and articulate key platform points for a potential second term.

Most pertinent to the Supreme Court’s latest ruling: If elected, Trump will be the first convicted felon to serve as US president, albeit not the first to seek the presidency. His recent conviction by a New York jury on 34 counts of falsifying records in a hush money case is one of several ongoing criminal cases against him.