George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said former President Donald Trump secured a victory over special counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court ruled on his claims of immunity.
The high court ruled Monday that presidents have immunity for “official acts” taken in office. Turley said that the 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts was a setback for Smith since lower courts would need to determine whether Trump’s conduct during the challenge fell under the protections.
“The court did not go with absolute immunity on everything but did say there is absolute immunity when it comes to core constitutional powers,” Turley told America’s Newsroom co-host Dana Perino and guest co-host Bret Baier. “We’re still going through the opinion to see if there is any assistance on where that line is to be drawn. This case is going to have to go back to the district court, which is going to have to try to thread this needle to determine what in the case would not fall under these protections, but this is obviously a win for President Trump in the sense that the special counsel was arguing, as with the lower court, that there was very little immunity here to be concerned with.”
WATCH:
‘A Win For President Trump’: Jonathan Turley Says SCOTUS Immunity Ruling Is Blow To Jack Smith pic.twitter.com/uBQpcDslEn
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 1, 2024
“The counsel for the government was assuring the court that they really didn’t have much to be concerned with here in terms of any changes in the status of the case. That’s clearly not what won the day.” Turley continued. “The court here is saying we do need lines here, drawn to protect presidents so they have some breathing room, and you have to sort of wonder how the context affected the justices. If they want to look at the implications of leaving presidents without protection, they just need to look around the country.”
Smith secured an indictment last August against Trump in Washington, D.C., relating to his alleged efforts to contest the results of the 2020 election.
“Even though Manhattan was not a federal case, it was a political prosecution in the view of many of us that was rather raw and open,” Turley continued. “And so this is a context that must have concentrated the minds of these justices as they did what Justice Gorsuch said, and try to write for the ages, to have something not for this case but for future cases and future presidents.”
A Manhattan jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsification of business records on May 30 in the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Police chief who groveled after discussing ‘East African crime’ panders to Somalis again - December 17, 2025
- Ilhan Omar whines about ICE operations in Minneapolis - December 17, 2025
- ‘It’s all bullsh*t’: Tim Walz goes on anti-Second Amendment rant - December 17, 2025
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
