TRANSCRIPT
Donald Trump says a decision by the United States Supreme Court on presidential immunity is a big win for democracy.
The ruling weakens the 2020 election interference case against him, reducing any chance of a pre-election trial.
Legal scholars warn the impacts of the decision, applying to all future presidents, will be far-reaching.
Protesters outside the Supreme Court in the United States made their views known moments after the historic judgement on the limits of presidential power.
Lesley Feder: "A big no to the Supreme Court for supporting this guy. And a big no to the Republican Party that's given up, and let Trump be their savior. He's no savior... and he is a pathological liar.
Noel Evans: And in my opinion, this is a corrupt court that has kicked the can down the road to such a degree that Trump will not get a trial before the election. And the American people have a right to that. Innocent or not, guilty or whatever."
Daniel: America since 1776 is all about democracy. That's why this country exists. This Supreme Court here of of nine members, is to handle law. The U.S. Capitol, that's to determine politics. This and that should not interfere. Unfortunately, this place - the Supreme Court - has and that's wrong, so yes that will affect democracy as we know it."
In a sign of how contentious the issue is, the judges of the Supreme Court were split.
The court's conservative majority – which Donald Trump helped create - ruled he has immunity against criminal prosecution for some of his conduct as president, in the case against him on efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost.
Federal prosecutors allege he spread lies about election fraud - and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to stay in power.
The Supreme Court ruling was divided along ideological lines 6-3, with the majority judgement saying absolute immunity would apply to presidents for so-called official conduct, relating to core duties of the president under the constitution.
The majority judges say this is distinct from private conduct, for which criminal prosecutions could still be brought.
Legal interpretation of how that would apply to Trump's election interference case will be left for the lower courts, and specifically US District Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Writing the dissenting judgement, Justice Sonia Sotomayor says: "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
Constitutional law scholar Alan Morrison - at George Washington University - says he is taken aback at the scope of the presidential immunity outlined in the majority judgement.
"I was surprised at how broadly they defined the areas of immunity for Trump and how little room they left, in at least some parts, for, for the government. I would say that the case is definitely not over. The government has a lot in its indictment that it can prove and will suffice to convict Trump, if proven. On the other hand, it's 100 per cent clear that that's not going to happen any time soon. And for Donald Trump, that's probably as big a victory as he cares about right now. He'll worry about the trial if that happens, which will only happen, I think, if he is not reelected."
Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the election interference case, saying he believes it is politically motivated.
On social media, he immediately rejoiced, calling the decision a "big win for our constitution and democracy".
President Joe Biden says it will be left to voters to decide at the election what they think of Trump's actions.
"At the outset of our nation, it was the character of George Washington - our first president. He believed power was limited - and not absolute. And that power always resides in the people, always. Now, we're 200 years later. Today's Supreme Court decision, once again will depend on the character of the men and women who hold that presidency - that are going to define the limits of the presidency. Because the law will no longer do it."
Constitutional experts say there is still a narrow window for Trump to face trial, but almost certainly not before the November election.
Claire Wofford is an associate professor of political science at the College of Charleston.
She says while Trump did not get support for his call for 100 per cent immunity, the Supreme Court decision does weaken the election interference case against him.
"And they’ve remanded most of the case back to the district court to have Judge Chutkan determine whether or not what Trump is alleged to have done is official, in which case it would be immune for prosecution, or unofficial, in which case it could be prosecuted. The court didn't come down definitively either way, but they did strike a very protective balance for the president. In other words, it's going to be very challenging for Jack Smith to win the argument that everything alleged in the indictment is an unofficial act. And if a trial does go forward on President Trump, it's likely going to be on far fewer activities than are currently in the indictment. So it's going to be a narrowing, an undercutting of Jack Smith's case. Not a complete ending of it, but certainly a much tighter rope he has to walk to have Trump held criminally accountable."
Law professor James Sample at Hofstra University says the implications of the Supreme Court's judgement are far-reaching.
"That is the majority's rationale, that the executive needs to have broad discretion to do the things that need to get done to run the country. But if that immunity is so broad as to encompass things that are, by every other definition, illegal, then official action on the part of the president can include things like: self-aggrandising efforts to stay in power, despite the attempt to stay in power being manifestly at odds with every other law in a democratic system, including our election laws. That is scary, and as both Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson point out in their dissents, what this sets up in terms of an incentive structure ought to be terrifying to every American and, frankly, every citizen around the world who believes in the rule of law."
Trump is the first former president in US history to be criminally convicted.
In May 2024 Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records, to cover up a hush money payment made during the 2016 presidential election to a porn actor who says she had sex with him, which he denies.
A sentencing hearing is set for July 11, four days before the Republican National Convention and Trump has vowed to appeal.
Two other criminal cases against him have encountered road blocks - and they are also unlikely to go to trial before the November election.
The mishandling classified documents case in Florida was due to start in May, but has been bogged down in legal issues.
A separate case, in Georgia, also turns on Trump's actions after his election defeat in 2020.
