"Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office," this is important due to his election interference indictments.
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark 6-3 ruling on July 1, 2024, granting former presidents significant immunity from criminal prosecution. In Trump v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that presidents have "absolute immunity" for official acts related to core constitutional powers and "presumptive immunity" for other official actions. The ruling benefits former President Trump in his case regarding alleged 2020 election interference, eliminating charges related to his Justice Department interactions and returning the case to lower courts to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.
The Court's three liberal justices issued sharp dissents, with Justice Sotomayor declaring, "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law." Legal experts suggest the decision effectively postpones any trial until after the November 2024 election, as courts must now undertake a time-consuming process to determine which aspects of Trump's conduct remain prosecutable. The ruling represents one of several Supreme Court decisions significantly impacting the 2024 presidential race.
All four news outlets—SCOTUSblog, New York Post, BBC, and Associated Press (AP)—agreed on the fundamental aspects of the Supreme Court's historic 6-3 ruling on July 1, 2024, which established for the first time that former presidents have some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution. Each publication emphasized that the Court's conservative majority determined that presidents have "absolute immunity" for official acts related to their core constitutional powers, and at least "presumptive immunity" for other official acts.
The media sources consistently reported that the ruling did not completely dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith's case against former President Donald Trump regarding his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Instead, the Court sent the case back to lower courts to determine which allegations involved "official" versus "unofficial" acts—with only the latter potentially subject to prosecution.
All outlets highlighted Chief Justice John Roberts' assertion in the majority opinion that "the president is not above the law," while also noting Justice Sonia Sotomayor's stark dissent in which she warned that "the President is now a king above the law." The 6-3 ideological split on the Court was consistently reported, with the three liberal justices dissenting.
There was universal acknowledgment across the coverage that this ruling would significantly delay any potential trial, making it highly unlikely that Trump would face a trial in this case before the November 2024 presidential election. As the AP directly stated, the ruling was "all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election."
While all outlets mentioned Trump's celebration of the ruling as a victory, the depth of coverage varied. The New York Post and BBC provided more extensive quotes from Trump's social media posts, with the Post including his all-caps declaration of a "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY," while SCOTUSblog maintained a more restrained tone in reporting his response.
The AP uniquely included extensive reaction from President Biden, quoting him as saying the justices set "a dangerous precedent (that) undermines the rule of this nation." The AP also mentioned Biden's evening remarks from the White House. The other outlets either omitted or minimized Biden's response, with the BBC briefly noting that deputy Biden campaign manager Quentin Fulks was "banging his fist on the table" during a media call.
SCOTUSblog provided the most detailed analysis of the legal reasoning and potential implications, including extensive explanations of the Court's differentiation between official and unofficial acts. The blog uniquely mentioned that Roberts rejected the government's proposal to use evidence about official acts to make a case about unofficial acts, calling it a threat that would "eviscerate the immunity we have recognized."
Only the SCOTUSblog and AP coverage substantially addressed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's partial concurrence, in which she agreed with the majority on immunity for core constitutional powers but suggested a different approach for other official acts. The AP noted her specific disagreement regarding the use of official acts as evidence, quoting her statement that "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable."
The AP and BBC included reactions from legal experts not found in the other articles. The BBC quoted Mitchell Epner calling the ruling "a major victory for Donald Trump," while the AP included perspectives from Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller and election law expert David Becker, who described the immunity granted as "incredibly broad" and "deeply disturbing."
All outlets mentioned that Trump's discussions with the Justice Department were deemed "official acts" for which he has absolute immunity. The SCOTUSblog more specifically detailed that this related to Trump's alleged efforts to "leverage the Justice Department's power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump's fraudulent slates of electors."
The coverage of Trump's alleged pressure on Vice President Mike Pence varied. SCOTUSblog and the BBC noted this specific allegation and the Court's ruling that Trump was "presumptively immune" for these interactions. The New York Post and AP mentioned this aspect more briefly.
The media sources differed in their coverage of the fake electors scheme. The AP provided the most detailed explanation, noting that the Court directed a "fact-finding analysis" on allegations that Trump participated in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states. SCOTUSblog also addressed this issue in detail, while the BBC and New York Post gave it less attention.
The BBC and AP placed greater emphasis on the historical significance of the ruling, with the BBC noting it was "the first time since the nation's founding that the Supreme Court has declared former presidents can be shielded from criminal charges." The AP similarly emphasized how the ruling "reflected a muscular view of presidential power."
Only the AP mentioned the potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, noting that Thomas's wife attended the January 6 rally and exchanged messages with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, while Alito had flags similar to those carried by January 6 rioters flying at his homes.
The outlets varied in how much attention they gave to Trump's other legal challenges. The AP provided the most comprehensive overview, noting Trump's conviction in the New York hush money case and mentioning that his lawyers had asked the New York judge to set aside that conviction following the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. The New York Post also mentioned Trump's other cases in some detail, while SCOTUSblog and the BBC made only brief references.
While the four news sources agreed on the fundamental aspects of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, they differed significantly in their emphasis, depth of legal analysis, inclusion of political reactions, and coverage of related issues. SCOTUSblog provided the most thorough legal analysis, the AP offered the broadest contextual coverage including expert reactions and potential conflicts of interest, the New York Post included more extensive political reactions, and the BBC emphasized the historical significance while maintaining a more international perspective. These differences reflect each outlet's editorial focus and audience, highlighting how the same ruling can be presented with varying emphases while maintaining factual accuracy.
Articles Analyzed: SCOTUSblog, New York Post, BBC, AP.
*There may be errors on this page.
Supreme Court Rules That Donald Trump Has Immunity For Official Acts
Timelines Involved
- Event Date:
