Supreme Court rules, 6-3, that a former Prez must “have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office”

The Supreme Court finished up quite a notable Term with a lengthy and divided opinion on criminal justice immunity for the US President.  The full ruling with all the opinion in Trump v. US, No. 23–939 (S. Ct. July 1, 2024) (available here), I believe, is the longest of the Term checking in at 119 total pages. Here is the line up of opinions:

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BARRETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Here is the brief start of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the Court, as well as a couple of key paragraphs fromt the start and finish of his 43-page majority opinion:

This case concerns the federal indictment of a former President of the United States for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. We consider the scope of a President’s immunity from criminal prosecution….

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office.  At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.  As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity.  At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient….

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.  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.  That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.

The concurring opinions of Justices Thomas and Barrett add nuance to their decisions to join the Court’s opinion.  And Justice Sotomayor provides the chief dissent, which gets started this way:

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.