Legal experts weigh in on Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. ( WIAT ) — For the first time in history, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled the president has immunity on official acts of office — excluding unofficial acts.

This 6-3 ruling has stirred up some controversy, with some saying SCOTUS has granted the president powers above the law.

“The king had absolute power and he could not be prosecuted or reprimanded for any conduct that he got involved in,” constitutional law professor and former federal prosecutor Raymond Johnson said. “That’s pretty much similar to the way it’s set up today based upon the ruling [Monday].”

Some local legal experts say this Supreme Court ruling is very protective over the president and presidential powers that could have long-term ramifications.

“I am concerned about it because I don’t think, at least at my initial reading, is that the court may have not put enough guardrails on a president’s action,” former U.S. attorney and former senator Doug Jones said. “On the other hand, I do agree that the president needs to be able to function appropriately without fear of a zealous prosecutor in the next administration prosecuting him.”

“That’s not going to be received too well from scholars such as myself or others who feel that yes, the president is not above the law and that he should answer for any illegal conduct that he has committed while in office,” Johnson said.

Jones says this ruling is not a total win for former President Donald Trump, because it’s not complete immunity for every action taken while in office.

“I’ve never been one to believe that this was going to be so black and white, a yes or no, absolute immunity or no immunity,” Jones said. “I think the court is trying to strike a balance.”

Johnson says there has always been some immunity for the president but what SCOTUS did Monday was make a clear distinction between prosecuting official versus unofficial acts by the president.

“Justice Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, brought it out that the president is not above the law but gave the president a lot of protections,” Johnson said. “It was Sotomayor who really brought it back to earth and said look, you’re giving the president too much authority, too much power in his particular office.”

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling sends the case back to the district court. While legal experts say it’s not likely we see a full-blown trial of Trump before the November election, there could still be an evidentiary hearing with witnesses. Jones says if that happens, it would be just as significant as the Jan. 6 committee.

“The difference between what would happen in court and what happened for instance in the January 6 hearing is that all that evidence would be subject to cross-examination by Donald Trump’s lawyers,” Jones said.

“It will almost be as a mini-trial because the government, according to the court, has the burden now to show that his conduct should not be given immunity,” Johnson said.

Johnson says the split of the justices in this ruling shows a sharp division of ideologies among the Supreme Court.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to CBS 42.