Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump Immunity Claim, Remands Case Back to Judge Chutkan

Max Power - Clear Background

Max Power

Max Power is the Editor-in-Chief of Undoing Time.  You can reach him at or by calling 866-664-3052


Donald Trump and Judge Tanya Chutkan

Washington, D.C., July 1, 2024 – The Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump has some presidential immunity from the Federal criminal charges pending against him as a result of the January 6, 2021 riots in Washington D.C., sending the case back to Judge Tanya Chutkan for re-examination. You can read the opinion HERE:

Docket # 23-939 – Donald J. Trump v. United States – Decision of the Supreme Court 7-1-2024

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court delineated the difference between official acts and unofficial acts. A President or a former President may not be prosecuted for exercising their co Constitutional powers and is entitled to absolute immunity for actions within their authority under the Constitution. This is because the text of Article II of the Constitution gives the President “conclusive and preclusive” authority. When authority is given to the President by an Act of Congress, the President is entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for all official acts taken in furtherance of that authority, which must be rebutted by the Government in a criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court also ruled that a President for former President is not entitled to immunity for unofficial acts. In making this ruling, the Court used former President Bill Clinton as an example for legal precedent. The Supreme Court gave some guidance on how to determine whether an act of the President is official, or unofficial. – such as acting as a candidate for office of a political party leader. Then a court must examine the content, form and context of the acts or statements that are alleged to be unofficial acts subject to prosecution. The Supreme Court stated that in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.

Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. The Indictment in the District Court for the District of Columbia is based, in part, on official acts taken while Trump was in office. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the Indictment’s charges without such conduct.

You can read the Indictment HERE:

Docket # 23-cr-00257 – United States of America v. Donald J. Trump – Indictment

Importantly, the Supreme Court ruled that testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he questioned the legality of the appointment of Special Counsel to prosecute anyone – apparently including both Donald Trump and Hunter Biden

Because neither Judge Chutkan nor the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit examined whether the acts alleged in the Indictment are official or unofficial, the case is sent back to Judge Chutkan for a new determination within the parameters set by the Supreme Court in today’s decision. President Trump and the Government can again appeal the next decision to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and potentially again to the Supreme Court before the case ever makes it to trial.

The case is United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, Docket # 1:23-CR-00257-TSC. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan, District Court Judge.


Criminal Defense lawyer, criminal defense attorney, Federal appeal lawyer, Federal appeals lawyer, Federal appeals lawyers, Federal appeal attorney, Federal appeal attorneys, Federal Appeals Attorney, Federal Appeals Attorneys, Federal criminal defense lawyer, federal criminal appeal lawyer, 


Supreme Court, immunity, January 6, Jan 6 riot, Donald Trump, Election Interference, Judge Tanya Chutkan


Latest Posts
Skip to content