Prison Now Inevitable? Judge Strips Trump’s Final Legal Shield 

have word that the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during the tenure of President Trump. This is the big one we’ve been waiting for. It’s consequential. It’s really interesting that the Supreme Court in 248 years of our history has never actually ruled on this. So, it is big and sweeping.

 And I have our political panel looking over this right now. Andy McCarthy, uh, Chief Justice John Roberts has the writing on this. He’s got the pen. Is that significant? >> It’s very significant. Uh, it’s the most important case of the term in terms of the long-term interests of the executive branch, in terms of the long the short-term interest of Donald Trump.

 And it looks like at least within the bounds of clear executive authority, what Chief Justice Roberts is saying is that the president clearly has immunity from prosecution >> from the court. Um, it does find this under a constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity for from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

 He is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. That’s the first blush we’ve got on this. It is it looks like a six to3 split. We’ve got the descent by Justice Sodomire Kagan and Jackson join that. There is a kind of split decision on some of these.

 Somebody joins in one part, not in another part, but that’s the overall holding of the court. So what it means now, we’ll have to dig in into this and see if they tell us now. How do you decide an official act versus an unofficial act? Because that’s going to be critical. Having now said the president does have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and proclusive constitutional authority.

 We’ll dig in, see how they define those official acts and look for a little bit more from you from the opinion. But at first blush, this looks like it is going to be a win for the argument for presidential immunity when it comes to allegations of criminal activity. What’s interesting is that, you know, I’m sure if you’re at the Biden White House, you’re paying close attention to this as well because in the situation that >> the Supreme Court has officially ruled on how much protection a president has from being prosecuted for crimes. This

represents a massive moment in American juristprudence because in 248 years of constitutional history, the court has never had to decide this fundamental question. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court, marking a significant move for the long-term interests of the country. The ruling creates a clear split in presidential protections.

 It establishes that a president has absolute immunity for things that fall under their core constitutional authority. Presidents also receive at least some protection for all official acts. However, there is no immunity at all for unofficial acts. This was a 6-3 decision along ideological lines. Justice Sodto, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson disagreed with the majority opinion.

Now, a substantial portion of legal focus centers on how to tell the difference between an official act and an unofficial act. This distinction is the part that changes everything moving forward. A lower court, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, also issued a decision that significantly impacts presidential legal defenses.

 This ruling addresses several key questions that have lingered in American law. The court determined that a president cannot pardon himself. This addresses a suggestion that a president could simply grant himself a pardon to make federal criminal problems disappear. The court made it clear that this is not how the pardon power works.

A pardon is an act of mercy from one person to another. You cannot grant mercy to yourself because that would defeat the entire purpose of the law. This shuts the door on one significant potential legal strategy. The court established that immunity is much narrower than broadly claimed. It only protects a very small range of actions.

Most actions that could be subject to prosecution do not count as official presidential duties when they were personal or related to campaign activities. Because of that distinction, immunity does not protect against those categories of charges. The court stated there is no immunity for crimes that can lead to impeachment.

 If a president commits a crime that is serious enough to get them removed from office by Congress, they do not get to hide behind immunity. This is significant because many serious charges like attempting to overturn an election or mishandling classified documents are considered impeachable offenses. The court ruled that criminal cases can move forward once a presidency ends.

 Once a person isno longer in the White House, they are a private citizen again. All evidence can be presented and trials can proceed just like they would for anyone else. Former presidents must stand trial like any other defendant. This ruling changes how we think about presidential accountability. For a long time, people assumed a president was mostly safe from the law while in office.

 Now, the court has drawn a very sharp line. If you are performing your constitutional duties, you are protected. If you are trying to help your own campaign or doing things for personal benefit, you are just like any other citizen. This is important because it means the office of the president does not protect the person in the office if they break the rules for their own gain.

 Looking back at history, we can see how different this framework is from past practice. During Watergate, Richard Nixon did not have to go through years of trials. After he left office, President Gerald Ford gave him a full pardon right away. Ford did that because he wanted the country to move on, but that was a pardon from a different person.

 The idea of a self-pardon is something without historical precedent. The court essentially said that the power to pardon is not a get out of jail free card that you can write for yourself. It is supposed to be about mercy and you cannot really show mercy to yourself in a legal sense. We can also compare this to other countries. In places like South Korea or France, it is actually quite common for former leaders to go to court or even to prison after they leave office.

 In America, there has always been this idea that putting former leaders on trial would be too messy for the country. This ruling shows that the American legal system is moving closer to the principle that no one, not even the person at the very top, is above the law. The impeachable crimes portion of the ruling is particularly significant.

 Usually, impeachment is seen as a political process, not a legal one. But the court is now linking them. They are saying that if a crime is serious enough that Congress could remove you from office for it, then the regular courts can also punish you for it afterward. This prevents a president from doing something terrible, getting impeached, and then walking away totally free.

 Legal analysts have described the new system as something of a conveyor belt. In the past, the legal system for a president was more like a maze with lots of exits. You could get a pardon, you could claim immunity, or you could delay until the matter faded from public attention. The court has now blocked most of those exits.

 The path is much straighter. End of term, then trial, then verdict. What this really means is that the strength of evidence finally matters most. For years, conversations centered on procedural questions about whether charges could even be brought. Now, the conversation shifts to whether charges can be proven.

 When looking at evidence in cases like classified documents, it is much harder to win a fight about the facts than it is to win a fight about the rules. This puts defendants in a more precarious position because factual evidence cannot be dismissed through procedural arguments. In the short term, we will see extensive factf finding hearings since the Supreme Court said official acts are protected but private ones are not.

 Lower court judges must examine every single charge and decide which category applies. This will take time, but it will not stop the process. It moves the fight from does immunity apply to does this specific act qualify for immunity. One major consequence is that this will likely speed up trials once the official act questions are settled.

 Prosecutors now have a clear map. They know exactly what they need to prove to make charges stick. They will focus on things done as a candidate and private citizen because those are the areas where there is zero protection. This ruling changes the presidency forever. Future presidents will have to be much more careful.

 They will know that every phone call, every document, and every meeting could be examined by a prosecutor once they leave the White House. Some observers think this is good because it keeps leaders honest. Others worry it might make presidents afraid to take bold actions because they do not want to face legal consequences later.

 The charges typically faced in major federal cases are very serious. Document related charges often carry 10 to 20 years. Obstruction charges also have 20-year maximums. Election interference charges carry similarly substantial penalties. If a jury finds a defendant guilty on multiple counts, the sentences can be very long.

 Of course, most people do not actually serve the maximum on every count. Usually sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively, but even a small portion of potential maximum sentences would be significant for an elderly defendant. The math is straightforward. If someone is convictedand sentenced to 20 or 30 years at age 78, that is effectively a life sentence.

They are not likely to live to be 110. If you stack up several serious convictions with long sentences, a defendant could realistically die in federal custody. This is not hyperbole. It is simply how the numbers work. We should also expect more political tension because the stakes are now extremely high for any politician facing serious federal charges.

 The political battles will become even more intense when legal freedom is on the line alongside political power. History shows us that when the legal system finally catches up to a powerful leader, it usually happens all at once. The legal framework is now established. The procedural exits have been significantly narrowed. The rules have been set.

 The Supreme Court has established that no president has unlimited immunity. The DC Circuit has established that self-pardons are not valid. The path from the end of a presidency to a courtroom is now much clearer than it has ever been in American history. This represents a fundamental shift in American governance and accountability.

Future presidents, current politicians, and all Americans now operate under a clearer understanding that the highest office in the land does not place anyone completely beyond the reach of the law. The long-term effects of these rulings will continue to unfold as courts apply these new standards to specific cases and as future presidents adjust their conduct accordingly.

 What remains certain is that American constitutional law has entered a new era regarding executive accountability.