Supreme Court rules that Trump has partial immunity

The US Supreme Court has handed down its judgement on the extent to which former presidents are protected from criminal prosecution. According to this judgement immunity applies to official acts, at least. Decided by six votes to three, this was a victory for the ultra-conservative justices on the jury. Europe's press discusses the implications for the cases pending against ex-president Donald Trump.

Open/close all quotes
Der Standard (AT) /

Ideologically motivated rule for eternity

The decision undermines the division of powers, Der Standard warns:

“For years the conservatives in the US have warned against so-called activist judges - supposedly liberal justices who interpret the law in a way that corresponds to their ideas about society. This is what we are seeing now with the ruling of the six judges nominated by the Republican president: the accusation was intended to disguise what they themselves were intending to do. The ruling in the case of Trump vs the United States goes far beyond the favour the Supreme Court is doing the ex-president. 'We are writing a rule for the ages here', conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch said at a hearing on the case. At least on that score he was right. Tragically.”

The Economist (GB) /

It could all fizzle out now

The ruling is a major victory for Trump, The Economist writes:

“The charges against Mr Trump for allegedly trying to thwart his electoral loss in 2020 will almost certainly not proceed before the election in November - and maybe not ever. ... Mr Smith's case against Mr Trump has been fizzled. What remains of it could potentially be revived after Judge Chutkan decides which charges involve unofficial (and thus prosecutable) acts. But with only four months to go before the election, there is little chance that Mr Smith will get to present that evidence to a jury in time. And if Mr Trump wins, he is sure to order his attorney-general to shut it all down.”