Brandon Livesay
US reporter

Image source, Getty Images

We are wrapping up our live coverage of the historic decision by the US Supreme Court to grant presidents partial immunity from criminal prosecution.

This decision has an immediate impact on some of Donald Trump's legal cases. And it will have lasting impacts on the office of the President of the United States.

For a full explanation of what happened today at the Supreme Court, you can read this article.

And if you want to delve into what this means for Donald Trump, you can read this analysis from BBC's North America Correspondent Anthony Zurcher.

Our writers today have been Lisa Lambert, Brandon Drenon, Rachel Looker and Kayla Epstein. Bernd Debusmann was reporting from the Supreme Court.

The page was edited by Caitlin Wilson and myself.

Thanks for joining us.

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

Trump has already been convicted in one of his criminal cases: the hush money trial in Manhattan earlier this year.

A jury unanimously found that Trump had broken the law when he falsely recorded reimbursements for payouts to an adult film star in order to keep the truth about the documents' nature away from the public.

Trump had made those reimbursements during his first year in the White House.

But the US Supreme Court decision likely won't affect the conviction, said Mark Zauderer, prominent appellate attorney in New York.

"The allegations in the New York fraud case in which Trump was convicted seem clearly to relate to unofficial conduct by Trump, none of which would seem to involve his official duties," he said.

"While Trump will be able to litigate his immunity defence in some of his cases, he will have a most difficult time succeeding with this argument in the New York case."

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

Trump and several co-defendants remain under indictment in Georgia for their alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results there.

Today's Supreme Court ruling could create "some new headaches" for prosecutor Fani Willis, said Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University College of Law. But it would not entirely gut the case.

"There are going to be some significant pieces of evidence that can't be used against Donald Trump," Kreis told me. Evidence from Trump's actions at the White House - such as conversations with other White House officials, including alleged co-conspirators Mark Meadows and Jeffrey Clark - might ultimately get axed.

But one of the biggest smoking guns in the case - Trump's phone call to Georgia's Secretary of State asking him to "find" more than 11,000 extra votes to win the state - could likely be considered more of a campaign action than an "official" one, Kreis speculated, since it was clearly in Trump's personal interest.

What's next: Trump's lawyers will likely bring arguments to Judge Scott McAfee, who's overseeing the case. McAfee will then have to weigh each piece of evidence in order to decide whether it can be included. Because he has other matters on his plate related to the case, this process might not play out until 2025.

“I don’t think its on life support," Kreis said of the Georgia case. "But it's something we have to see how it plays out going forward”

A lot has happened today in US politics, so let's take a moment to recap.

The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office, but have no immunity for unofficial acts.

• The ruling from the six conservative justices dealt a serious blow to the federal criminal case against Donald Trump on charges of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
• Any prosecution against Trump that emerges from this decision will now be delayed well beyond November’s presidential election
• The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that this decision made the US president "a king above the law"
• Sotomayor spoke for more than 20 minutes in her dissenting speech, while Chief Justice John Roberts spoke for about five minutes

• Trump's case will now be sent back to lower courts to decide what actions he took are official and unofficial

• Trump sees this as a major victory. So do most court-watchers
• Biden's deputy campaign manager hit out at the decision, claiming the Supreme Court gave Trump the 'keys to a dictatorship'

When it comes to Trump's speeches and tweets on the day of the Capitol riot, the justices said: "Most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities."

But they seemed to leave room for some of his communications, writing: "There may, however, be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader."

In those cases, a lower court must use "content and context" to decide if those communications were official.

Trump gave a speech before the riot on 6 January 2021, which prosecutors have alleged helped spark the Capitol attack.

Today's ruling means the case against Donald Trump for his alleged actions on 6 January 2021 will be sent back to a lower court.

Overseeing it is Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was assigned the case last year.

It will now be up to her to interpret what exactly this Supreme Court ruling means for Trump's case.

For more than a decade she worked as a public defender in Washington DC where she "argued several appellate cases and tried over 30 cases, including numerous serious felony matters", her biography says.

Beyond Trump, Chutkan has seen dozens of people accused of participation in the 6 January riot appear before her and has won a reputation for harsh sentences for those convicted.

Judge Chutkan has previously said it "has to be made clear that trying to violently overthrow the government, trying to stop the peaceful transition of power and assaulting law enforcement officers in that effort, is going to be met with absolutely certain punishment".

Chutkan has been assigned other cases involving Trump as well.

In 2021, she blocked his efforts to stop a Congressional committee's bid to access reams of his administration's White House papers with the phrase: "Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not president".

Rachel Looker
Reporting from Washington DC

Julie Novkov, the dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany, said the court's decision raises factual questions that will have to be addressed in the lower federal courts.

These courts' decisions would be subject to appeal.

“The Supreme Court is clear they want to have the last say in how those lines get cut,” she told me.

Novkov said she was surprised the court's definition of official acts is so broad.

“I could imagine scenarios were we would have to get into this really careful analysis,” she added.

In a fiery phone call with the media after the Supreme Court decision was announced, deputy Biden campaign manager Quentin Fulks could be heard banging his fist on the table as he spoke.

"Immune, immune, immune. They just handed Donald Trump keys to a dictatorship," Fulks said.

"The conservative justices on the court, three of whom are only there because (of) Donald Trump, just made it easier for him to pursue a path to a dictatorship," Fulks claimed.

It's already a very busy year in US politics.

And it's about to ramp up even more.

So if you want to keep track of what actually matters in the race, and why, we've got a newsletter to keep you informed.

If you're in the UK, sign up here.

And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

This ruling is “among the worst-case scenarios” for Special Counsel Jack Smith, says Aziz Huq, a constitutional law expert at the University of Chicago.

Smith, the Justice Department prosecutor, has charged Trump over his alleged attempts to interfere with the results of the 2020 election.

“I think it will be important to see if Smith can narrow the indictment by eliminating those facts that the Court has ranked as 'official,'" Huq told me.

“Of course,” Huq adds, “Trump will try and litigate anything that remains.”

The Supreme Court decision will probably lead to even more appeals, he says, as Trump will likely challenge any decisions the lower courts make about his official vs unofficial actions at the centre of the case.

So long story short: Jack Smith has a long and arduous road ahead of him.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court outlined which of Donald Trump's actions in the federal election interference case were "official" and thereby immune from criminal charges.

The court determined it was an official act when: "Trump met with the Acting Attorney General and other senior Justice Department and White House officials to discuss investigating purported election fraud and sending a letter from the Department to those States regarding such fraud".

The court said investigation and prosecution of crimes, like potential election fraud, "is a quintessentially executive function".

Trump's threats to remove acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen - who refused Trump's requests to further investigate election fraud after the claims were debunked - were also under his presidential authority, the court said.

On whether Trump's attempts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the election results, the court said those conversations also were "official conduct".

"Applying a criminal prohibition to the President’s conversations discussing such matters with the Vice President—even though they concern his role as President of the Senate—may well hinder the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions," the court said.

Rachel Looker
Reporting from Washington DC

Jeffrey Cohen, an associate professor at Boston College Law School, says he feels the opinion lacks clarity as to what counts as an official versus unofficial act.

“There’s language in there that suggests that official acts could bleed into unofficial acts really easily and render things presumptively immune,” he tells BBC News.

Cohen says he worries that the dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "made too many good points".

Justice Sotomayor cited several examples of a president's actions that could now be protected - such as ordering the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival.

Cohen says he thinks the majority discounted these examples because they see them as outlandish.

"I just feel like the majority fails to appreciate the risks that a former president posed,” he says.

“It’s a problem that the court has left us all with, this sinking feeling that they’re presuming almost everything is immune,” he says.

Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the Supreme Court

I just spoke to one of the members of the public who found himself - almost by chance - in the Supreme Court today.

Dan, a fifth-grade teacher from Los Angeles, first came to the court on Sunday. A lone protester outside told him to come back today, when he lined up for several hours this morning to be the 45th person in court.

"It reminded me of queuing for Springsteen tickets," he said. "It was way more intense than I anticipated."

The most surprising aspect, he said, was the anger with which Justice Sotomayor delivered her dissent.

"She was basically foaming at the mouth," he said. "I was stunned that she would speak like that."

The crowds are staring to trickle away now - with reporters and camera crews far outnumbering protesters.

Cai Pigliucci
Reporting from the Supreme Court

The song Shame on You is playing on repeat outside the Supreme Court - just two hours after the ruling granting some immunity to former presidents.

A few protesters have turned up to the steps of the court with signs and flags criticising Donald Trump - and the Supreme Court’s decision.

But it’s otherwise a quiet and relaxed summer day - serving in a stark contrast to the hugely consequential decision from inside the court.

Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the Supreme Court

The courtroom comments from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court's liberal justices, stood in stark contrast to those from Chief Justice John Roberts.

While Roberts was deadpan in his delivery, Sotomayor was clearly emotional, occasionally pausing.

She spoke slowly, emphasising the key aspects of her dissent to the court's opinion, which she said "reshapes the institution of the presidency" in a manner that is "utterly indefensible".

"Ironic, isn't it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them," she said, referring to the president. "The majority creates immunity through brute force."

As she spoke, Justice Clarence Thomas sat to the left, leaning back into his chair, rubbing his face and, at times, appearing to close his eyes.

In her remarks, Sotomayor gave a number of examples, including a president ordering Navy SEALs to kill a rival, or organising a military coup to hold onto power.

Never before, she added, has a President had reason to believe he would be immune from criminal prosecution for crimes committed in office.

"Moving forward... all former presidents will be cloaked in such immunity," she added.

In most Supreme Court cases, the dissent - both on paper and in the courtroom - ends with the statement that a justice "respectfully" dissents. Not this time.

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent," she said.

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

Legal expert Mitchell Epner told the BBC "this is a major victory for Donald Trump".

The court's ruling that Trump has "absolute immunity" for "official acts" as president appears to undermine many of the charges against him in the federal election interference case, Epner told me.

Epner said the immunity is likely to protect Trump's communication with White House staff, including, for example, "Trump’s command to Pence to refuse to accept the results of the election, a literal coup".

Although Trump can still be prosecuted for "unofficial acts", it will be up to the lower court to decide which charges apply under the Supreme Court's new ruling.

"The Jan 6 case will return to Judge (Tanya) Chutkan, who will have to decide which charges can move forward. Trump will appeal to the DC Circuit and likely to the Supreme Court (if he is unhappy with the decisions he receives)".

This all but ensures that the Washington DC trial does not begin before the November election, playing directly into Trump's delay strategy.

A flurry of reactions from US lawmakers have surfaced on social media in the wake of the Supreme Court's historic ruling.

Republican and Trump allies are celebrating the court's decision.

Eli Crane, a Republican congressman from Arizona, wrote: "Great news: The rule of law trumps an illegitimate political witch hunt.”

Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, said the decision “rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump".

Democratic party members had a much more dire tone.

Representative Gerry Connolly, from Virginia, said: “This is a shameful decision, and one that will haunt us for years to come.”

Florida Representative Frederica Wilson said: “The Supreme Court is a MAGA Republican hack.

“Today’s decision is all the proof you need. This wasn’t based on the Constitution; it was based on politics.”

Two lines from the opinion, where the Supreme Court justices address the trial judge in Trump's election interference case, are getting a lot of attention.

"And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct," they write.

That means that once the official acts are stripped away, the trial court must decide if there's enough still in the indictment to go forward. They're basically warning that the case against Trump may fall apart.

They also write: "Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial."

Private records typically include texts, emails and notes, which means a lot of what Trump wrote on 6 January, 2021 may not be used as evidence.

The landmark ruling was released roughly an hour ago. Here's a recap of what has happened so far:

• The justices ruled 6-3 that Trump has immunity from prosecution for official acts that are part of his core consitutional duties as president, and that he has zero immunity for unofficial acts
• They have sent the special counsel's case back to lower courts to decide what is official and unofficial, but they have also given guidance on the case

• The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that under this decision "the President is now a king above the law"
• Trump sees this as a major victory. So do most court-watchers

What was an official act in the 6 January case?

• Justices decided there are two official acts in this case: Directing the Justice Department to discuss investigating purported election fraud with some states and talking to then-Vice President Mike Pence (Trump pressed him to not certify the results of the 2020 election)
• They also said the speech Trump gave on the morning of 6 January 2021 encouraging rally attendees to march on the Capitol and suggesting he might join them was an official act, as were the tweets he sent that day
• They raised questions about whether pressuring state officials to change their states' electoral votes for Trump and creating what is commonly called the "false electors" lists for some states were unofficial, but they leave it to lower courts to decide
• In another blow to Jack Smith, they ruled that Trump's private records - and those of his advisers - "may not be admitted as evidence at trial"

Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the Supreme Court

In the courtroom, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a matter-of-fact outline of the majority's opinion in the Trump case, showing little emotion as he delved into the topic and the indictment against Donald Trump.

He did, however, immediately recognise the historic nature of the case.

"This is the first time this court has been called to answer that question [on immunity]," he said. "No president has been criminally prosecuted before."

The majority's decision, he said, rests in part on the concern that being under "constant threat" of immunity would, essentially impact a president's ability to carry out their duties properly and, in Roberts' words, pose "a danger to the executive".

"There is great risk his decision making will be distorted when in office," he said, before moving onto the majority's distinction between "official" and "unofficial" conduct.

"No immunity applies to unofficial conduct," he said. "Drawing that distinction can be difficult."

That distinction, Roberts added, has left him sceptical about Trump's criminal liability for the events of the 6 January 2021 riot.

"Most of a president's public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities," he said, although he said things could be different if he was "a candidate for office" - which he was not at the time.

There was little reaction from the court's other justices as Roberts spoke - most sitting quietly and staring ahead or jotting down notes.