Supreme Court immunity ruling could delay or undermine prosecution of Trump’s other cases

At the very least, Trump’s remaining trial will be delayed by this wide-ranging decision on immunity.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday on presidential immunity could delay former President Donald Trump’s January 6 case to after the election. However, the ruling of the high court may have wide-ranging effects on the former president’s cases, including his Florida classified document case and Georgia electoral case.

It is unlikely that these trials will be completed before the presidential elections in 2024, regardless of the impact the ruling has on them.

“Well, the D.C. Case is slowing down because some pieces have been thrown away.” The Supreme Court has ruled that communications with the Department of Justice, a part of the case, is immune. Communications with Mike Pence, relating to the counting of the elector votes, have presumptive immunity. Big pieces of the case are now gone,” Cornell Law School Professor William Jacobson said on the Monday “Just the News, No Noise TV show.”


The court left other pieces open. The lower court will have to decide if the actions Donald Trump performed in giving a talk at a rally, in tweeting, in communicating with state officials, are actually within the scope for an official act. Even if the case proceeds, it’s still up for debate. “Two major pieces of the case were removed, and the lower courts will have to resolve what’s left. There will be an appeals process, of course. “I think it’s unlikely that this will be resolved in a court trial before the elections.”

Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, said that the ruling by the court could apply to the classified documents as well as the Georgia election interfering case. This could cause a shift in the timeline for the pre-election due to new challenges and arguments.

When asked how widely the decision might apply, Dershowitz replied, “Without doubt, because immunity means immunity, not just from federal prosecution, state prosecution, as well.” There could be a debate about the Florida case and whether the president acted personally or publicly when he brought classified material with him. “That’s probably a stretch but the argument in Georgia does not stretch at all,” said he.

Trump, who had already argued that he was entitled to immunity in the case of the classified documents, based on a similar argument presented by his team in the case filed on January 6, celebrated the ruling and hinted towards his future legal strategy.

“BIG WIN for OUR CONSTITUTION and DEMOCRACY.” The former president wrote on Truth Social: “PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

Trump stated in another post that the Supreme Court’s historic decision should put an end to all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts, including the New York hoaxes, the Manhattan SCAM created by Soros-backed D.A. Alvin Bragg and Racist New York Attorney Tish James’ shameless attack on the amazing business I have built.

CNN reported that Trump’s legal team called the ruling “a major victory.”

Trump’s legal team also put into action this strategy Monday night, after the ruling was handed down. They notified Judge Juan Merchan of the former president’s intention to ask the court for an annulment of the jury verdict in his New York hush-money case from last month.

Trump is likely to use a similar approach in the case of classified documents. The legal team argues that the charges should be dismissed because Trump’s official acts are protected under presidential immunity. His legal team also claims that the president has broad declassification power, which covers any possession of documents after the presidency.

Jack Smith, on the other hand argues that, because the transfer of documents occurred after Trump’s tenure ended, he is not entitled to immunity and has no authority to declassify any documents. Smith accused Trump of 40 felonies related to the alleged mishandling classified materials. These included obstruction and willful retention of information about national defense.

Judge Eileen Cannon, the judge presiding the case in the Southern District of Florida has declined to make a ruling on Trump’s claim of immunity until the Supreme Court made a decision regarding the immunity claims of the former president. Trump’s team will likely file more arguments to support their position now that the court has defined immunity protections for acts of official authority. Cannon has shown that she is open to more evidentiary hearings prior to the trial. Critics claim that this has already caused a significant delay to the trial.

In June 2023, Trump was initially charged with 30 counts or willful detention and 30 counts or conspiracy to obstruct the justice.

Indictment: Trump ordered boxes with classified documents to be transported to Mar-a-Lago after he left office at noon, Jan. 20, 2021. Smith alleges that Trump shared classified information without clearance with people who did not have a security clearance, and tried to obstruct federal investigations.

In order to determine which acts are immune from prosecution, the lower court will have to take into account the Supreme Court’s decision.

According to our constitutional separation of powers, the nature and scope of presidential power gives a former president absolute immunity against criminal prosecutions for acts that fall within his conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority. In the opinion of Trump v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

This is a landmark decision from the Supreme Court. It has never considered before what immunity from prosecution an current or former President enjoys for their official acts while in office.

The Supreme Court ruling could also affect Trump’s case in Fulton County Georgia. District Attorney Fani willis accused the former president of a racketeering conspiracy under Georgia state law in order to influence the outcome of the 2020 elections. Willis’ case is similar to Smith’s January 6 federal case. It centers around the election, and the former president attempting to change the results of the Georgia statewide elections–a state that he lost.

“Trump and other defendants charged in this Indictment refused accept that Trump had lost and they knowingly, willfully and knowingly joined a conspiracy unlawfully to change the outcome