On July 1, after the U. S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard the case of Donald Trump v. United States, they ruled that Trump had immunity for official acts when he was in office. Special counsel Jack Smith accused Trump of conspiring to alter the 2020 election results. Denying Smith’s allegations, Trump argued he was acting officially as president and could not be charged because of presidential immunity. In his opinion following the ruling, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a president “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.” This means it’s assumed that a president cannot be charged with a crime.
As has often been the case on recent rulings, the 6-3 decision was split across the political beliefs of the justices. Justice Roberts conceded that determining what makes an act official “can be difficult” and returned that decision to the lower courts. The trial will likely be delayed until the election is over. According to Popli’s research, if Trump wins, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case. While these conclusions were formed over the summer, more recently Jack Smith filed a second indictment that excluded evidence of “official acts,” to which Trump has pleaded not guilty.
SCOTUS also ruled on several other important issues this summer. In Rahimi v. United States, the Court handled a key gun rights issue: whether persons under domestic abuse-based restraining orders can possess firearms. In an 8-1 decision, Justices ruled that a federal law banning gun possession by such people is not unconstitutional. Paideia student Davi Leal ‘26 disagrees with the decision and believes: “If [SCOTUS] truly believes that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, then I see no reason why a domestic violence restraining order gives the government that authority.” However, the decision affirms that an individual found to pose a serious threat to another person’s physical safety can temporarily lose access to firearms without violating the Second Amendment.
Another important case, Murthy v. Missouri, handled the issue of social media and free speech. Alongside five individuals, Missouri and Louisiana attorney generals accused government officials of unlawfully compelling Facebook, Twitter and other platforms to remove content about the 2020 election and COVID-19. SCOTUS’ 6-3 decision reversed a lower court ruling, which said that communications between government officials and social media platforms gave the officials responsibility for content moderation. “This ruling shows that the conservative wing of the court have not fully abandoned the constitution, Article III in particular, in favor of the will of Trump and his supporters. However, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are all craven and morally bankrupt,” says John Henry Ahman Lloyd ‘26.
Overall, the cases SCOTUS rules on are complex and multifaceted and continue to represent the divisive state of American society.
