in

US Supreme Court: Trump has “absolute immunity” for official acts | BBC News

The US Supreme Court has said Donald Trump and other former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts, in a major legal victory for the Republican White House candidate.

The decision makes it less likely that the Republican candidate will stand trial before he challenges Democratic President Joe Biden in November's White House election.

It is the first time since the nation's founding that the Supreme Court has declared former presidents can be shielded from criminal charges.

The justices found that a president is not immune for "unofficial acts”. The 6-3 ruling did not dismiss outright an indictment that charges Trump with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, but it did strip away key elements of the case against him.

The three liberal justices on the Supreme Court dissented strongly from the ruling, expressing “fear for our democracy”. “The President is now a king above the law,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Sophie Raworth presents BBC News at Ten reporting by Sarah Smith in Washington.

Subscribe here:

For more news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com/news

#BBCNews

What do you think?

Written by daily reporters

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

88 Comments

    • If a sitting President commits a crime, they impeach him/her
      Then it moves to the Senate for trial
      That’s the tried and tested method.

      Since the alleged crime was committed when Trump was POTUS they should impeach him again.
      They won’t 🤣

    • You’re talking to a Scandinavian, he’s a lost cause mate. They welcomed in so many migrants they have no-go zones that are controlled by migrant gangs and still smile and let more in.
      They are the furthest thing you can get from the warriors that went on Vikingr, their ancestors would be bereft if they ever witnessed what they have become.
      They’re afraid in their own country and let it happen because they don’t want to offend anyone or be called racists, it’s pitiful really.

    • ​@@dorseyjack3206 I’m almost certain you’re not a saint. Why don’t you go and apologise to all the people you’ve hurt and repent for all your sins. Go and turn yourself in for your fraudulent crimes, we know they exist. Then you can speak.

    • @@dorseyjack3206 Other rulings have made it very hard for Congress to investigate possible crimes committed by the executive branch (the president). Even if the president’s party is not complicit and ignores the president’s actions, we are coming closer to a reality where the president will simply remove members of Congress that they view as a hinderance. According to the Supreme Court, putting them on a kill list would not amount to a prosecutable offense since it would be an official act for which the president has blanket immunity. There is nothing true or tested about the latest ruling. The process was already broken by partisanship.

    • I just like to watch the BBC news for its propaganda .. and to see what messages they are sending out to the world… I totally agree with you .💯🇬🇧🇯🇲👍 Mr grimsdale Mr grimsdale .😂😂😂😂 Brilliant Norman wisdom..

    • ​@@noneyabizz8337 You’re correct of course. But yes, a completely fair and balanced system – the only person in the entire of America who doesn’t have an impartial jury to judge them under the law of the land happens to be the most powerful person in the country, and instead they have a jury of their colleagues, followers and sycophants, all politicians, who definitely don’t have a bias and vested interest in the fate of their party leader, and certainly wouldn’t make decisions for political reasons and advantage.

      This ruling comes from another very sensible American system – the executive branch of government being in charge of choosing the top judiciary (serving for their entire lives) who are supposedly there to hold said executive to account, namely the person who happens to be their buddy and gave them a job for life and power. This, combined with allowing judges to be extremely politically biased rather than impartial and simply following the word of the law, makes for a flawless system.

  1. And remind me again who nominated Kavanaugh at the supreme court ? Trump. You have to give it to him, he thinks long term investment. The fact that presidents can nominate supreme court judges to judge their own case is flawed to say the least..

    • So who should nominate the judges, a bunch of raging Trump hating Democrats who have precedence for going after their political opponents? Do you think the judge that presided over the recent Trump case in New York was ‘flawed to say the least?’. The same judge that donated to Joe Bidens campaign and whos daughter raised millions off the case for Bidens re-election campaign? Or is it just get Trump at any cost?

    • @wujekstalina  should Jackson recuse herself since the prosecution in this case is the same admin that nominated her?

      Should they all recuse themselves since they were all nominated by Democrats or Republicans?

      If only justices that were not nominated by ether Biden or Trump voted, then it would be a 2-2 split decision, what are they going to do then?

      The majority of supreme court cases include the current administration as a party, so can a justice just not serve in the majority of cases at all untill the admin that nominated them is gone?

      Who should be the one to nominate a justice if not the admin?

  2. As a citizen, on behalf of the United States of America, we went from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to Reagan to Obama to…well…this.
    History will mark this day, where we crossed the rubicon, and sadly, I was alive to witness it.
    Remember us, when we were the bearer of the standard.

  3. I lean conservative and still find this insane. If we were to go back in time to Bush’s presidency, this translates to meaning that he wouldn’t need to think twice about lying to Congress about WMDs. He got away with it anyways unfortunately, but this ruling just emboldens the president to do even more things like that. Could the president now call for a political assassination as an official duty? The fact that this idea now is moved into a gray area is horrible.

    • Bush was never charged. His insider status assured that. Bush is deep state elite.

      You know the ones who keep preaching no one’s above the law from their ivory towers

    • The ruling is clear – this reporter is simply wrong – and she knows it. As was Sotomayor’s dissent. The ruling was in line with the Constitution. Official acts are mostly protected by immunity – with some exceptions, whilst unofficial acts are not. It’s not hard. Not get caught up in BBC claptrap.

    • @@featherfiend9095 These imagined scenarios are desperate attempts to use ‘ fear’ to influence voters. It’s like a group of children and it’s obvious to those with any reasonable level of intellect. The US has a super set of checks and balances in place for any POTUS. Maybe a high school civics lesson is needed?

    • You need to understand the place and the language of a man ( who he is !? ) what language does he speak!!! From which perspective!!! He’s running a competition for presidential elections !!! He needs voters on his side!? Find a community, a group of people? Ask what they want? This is normal!!! How else you expect to find voters!?

    • You got it confused. There was no need for the Supreme Court to decide this issue until zealous partisan prosecutors chose to go after Trump over his constitutionally protected duties as president of the United States of America.

    • @@mactek6033they weren’t constitutionally protected, sorry but when it comes to election interference and coercion it’s not a presidential duty. And if he used campaign funds or staff in the process, that’s not official either. And it wasn’t over zealous prosecutors going after him, he’s been indicted by a grand jury of his peers. It’s legal. So is any referral from the DOJ. So no, you are very wrong. But by all means explain to me how that actually I’m wrong and it will be perfectly legal when Trump goes on a revenge tour to punish his opponents

    • @@youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwan8419 President Trump was the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Complaints of election fraud were being made. It was his duty to uncover what was going on in Georgia and elsewhere. Thanks to the Supreme Court, Trump has absolute immunity in these core duties. What was once mutually agreed immunity has now been made explicit.

Alia Bhatt Posts Picture Of Ranbir, Raha | Entertainment News | Jagran English

Parliament Session 2024: Rahul Gandhi Leads Congress’ Attack In Lok Sabha Against BJP | India Today