Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

Justice Thomas, who former President George H.W. Bush nominated in 1991, questioned the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel.

In that role, Smith brought charges against Trump in Washington, DC.

"If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution," Thomas wrote. "A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former president."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part.

Justice Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed in 2020 after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote that while she agrees with the opinion, she would have framed the underlying legal issues differently.

"The Court describes the President’s constitutional protection from certain prosecutions as an 'immunity.' As I see it, that term is shorthand for two propositions: The President can challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment, and he can obtain interlocutory review of the trial court’s ruling," she wrote.

She called the president's constitutional protection from prosecution "narrow" and said the court leaves open the chance that the Constitution "forbids prosecuting the president for any official conduct".

Though Donald Trump is taking today's Supreme Court ruling as a win, Joe Biden's re-election campaign says it "doesn't change the facts" of what happened on 6 January, 2021.

"Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election," the campaign said in a statement, reiterating a major point Biden is trying to make to voters - that Trump is a danger to democracy.

Trump "thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself," the statement added.

Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the Supreme Court

I’ve just walked out of the courtroom at the Supreme Court, which was, despite the historic nature of today’s ruling, only about two-thirds full.

About 100 observers were in the back of the room sitting quietly on wooden benches, with a handful of family members of the Supreme Court Justices sitting towards the front.

From where I was sitting to the side of the room, I could clearly see Justice John Roberts’ wife, as well as Justice Brett Kavanaugh's wife and parents.

When the justices - with the exception of Neil Gorsuch, who was absent - walked in, the room was quiet, and tense. Even as today's other decisions were read out, it was clear what most people there were waiting for.

"Sorry, this isn't one of the cases you want to hear," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said early on. "So I'll make this quick."

The room sparked up quickly though, when Judge Roberts began speaking and it became clear that we had arrived at the Trump case.

Seconds later, the only sound I could hear besides his voice was the sound of pens scribbling on paper from the reporters to my right and left.

Today's ruling has implications for Donald Trump's 6 January case.

The case against Trump, concerning his alleged conduct on the day of the Capitol riot and his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, now heads back to a lower court.

There, the prosecution will need to decide how it wants to proceed.

As Anthony Zurcher has explained, this ruling will drastically impact Special Counsel Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump.

For now, Smith isn't talking about it. He declined to comment on the court's ruling through a spokesperson, BBC's news partner, CBS News has reported.

Trump had argued that presidents can only be criminally prosecuted for allegations they were also impeached by Congress on.

The justices roundly rejected that argument.

"Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the nation’s government," they wrote.

Trump doesn't get total immunity, but this is a victory for the former presidentpublished at 16:09 British Summer Time 1 July 2024

16:09 BST 1 July 2024

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

This is a ruling that will leave the former president and his team pleased.

Donald Trump, the court held, has total immunity for official acts as president related to his core constitutional duties. Beyond that, there is a presumption of immunity for any other official acts. In practical terms, that means prosecutors will have to work much harder to bring their case over election interference and the 6 January riot at the US Capitol.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion, outlined guidance that could be particularly damaging to the prosecution’s case.

Trump's attempts to pressure Vice-President Mike Pence not to certify Joe Biden’s election victory – a key part of special prosecutor Jack Smith’s case – are the kind of official action subject to a higher standard of legal review. His communications with Justice Department officials have absolute immunity.

The president’s comments on 6 January – which have been alleged to be incitement of the Capitol attack - are also likely to be considered official actions.

The court added, however, that Trump does not have immunity for non-official actions, which means he could still face some charges.

At the very least, the court’s decision guarantees that this case will be delayed well beyond November’s presidential election as the lower court applies the details of this decision.

The court may not have given Trump the total immunity he asked for, but the practical implications is this is a major victory for the former president.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented the opinion. That means they voted against the majority ruling.

Justice Sotomayor called the consequences of the court's decision "stark" and said the court's decision allowed a president to use official powers to be insulated from criminal prosecution.

"Today's decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency," she wrote.

Justice Sotomayor said a president would now be protected if they ordered the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, organised a military dissenting coup to hold onto power, or took bribes in exchange for a pardon.

"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," she wrote.

Minutes after the decision was released, Trump wrote on social media: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"

The justices are leaving it to a lower court to decide whether two actions taken by Donald Trump were unofficial acts:

1. Trying to convince certain state officials that alleged election fraud meant they should change the state's electoral votes for Trump
2. Creating lists of what are commonly called "false electors" for the states to send to congress to case the electoral votes for Trump

These both relate to charges Trump faces in the state of Georgia.

Trump and 18 others are being prosecuted in Georgia for conspiracy to overturn the state's 2020 election results, which they deny.

Chief Justice John Roberts says in his opinion that this case is not just about the current moment, and it has far-reaching implications for the future.

The Supreme Court decision says a president is immune from criminal prosecution for "official acts" taken in office. But a president is not immune from "unofficial acts".

So what is an official act?

These are the official acts we've identified so far in the Supreme Court's opinion:

1. Directing the Justice Department to discuss investigating purported election fraud with the states
2. Talking to then-Vice President Mike Pence (Trump pressed Pence to not certify the results of the 2020 election)

Image source, Getty Images

While we unpack this 6-3 ruling, let's quickly look at the cases it could potentially impact.

Donald Trump faces three criminal cases, and has denied any wrongdoing in all of them.

Capitol riot and 2020 election: Federal prosecutors allege he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Biden's victory and stay in power.

He's been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.

Classified documents: Trump has been accused of mishandling classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.

It's also about whether he obstructed the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files, as well as the criminal investigation into his handling of them. The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.

Georgia 2020 election: Trump and 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his very narrow defeat in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election.

The racketeering investigation was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked the state's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".

You can read more here.

The Supreme Court has ruled that while a president is immune from criminal prosecution for "official acts" taken in office, he is not immune for "unofficial acts".

"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts," the ruling says.

We're looking through the opinion to see if the court has anything to say about what constitutes an official or unofficial act.

Writing the court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts says: "The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution" for official acts taken as president.

The document stipulates that courts would need to distinguish between what were official and unofficial actions.

The Supreme Court's decision was split along ideological lines, with the conservative justices leading the six to three split decision.

You can read the full decision here, external.

The US Supreme Court rules Donald Trump is partially immune from prosecution for actions taken while he was in the White House.

We are still unpacking the full details of the opinion.

Stick with us.

The US Supreme Court has issued an opinion on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was in the White House.

Stick with us as we read through this decision and learn more about what it means.

The justices have just shared their decision on a significant case about social media, known in legal circles as NetChoice.

Essentially, in a unanimous decision the Supreme Court is kicking the case back down to the lower courts.

They have written some guidance on how to apply the First Amendment.

We're still reading through the documents and will bring you more details shortly.

You can also read the full decision here, external.

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America correspondent

The justices - three of whom were appointed by Donald Trump - could rule former presidents have blanket immunity or hold they do not have any criminal immunity.

The court could also issue a decision somewhere in the middle.

For example, it could outline requirements for juries to consider, such as whether a former president was carrying out official duties. Or it could rule Trump may have some level of immunity but leave it to a lower court to make that determination before trial.

Such an outcome would leave Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution in limbo, however, opening the door to further challenges and delays.

Holly Honderich
US reporter

For nearly three hours in April of this year, the Supreme Court weighed whether former presidents are immune from prosecution and what exactly it means if they are.

The justices' asked pointed questions, levelled at both sides of the argument.

Their questions, along with tense exchanges and high-stakes hypothetical scenarios, also showed that both the conservative majority and liberal minority of the court were making the decision with an eye to history.

Would total immunity mean a future president was free to use the US military to kill his or her rivals?

Or, without it, would presidents leaving office be subject to the whims of individual prosecutors and thrown in jail as part of political vendettas?

While the conservative side seemed open to the idea that all former US presidents should have some degree of immunity, all the justices sounded sceptical of arguments made by Trump's lawyer, Dean John Sauer, that a former president has near-total protection from prosecution.

"How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?" asked Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberal justices.

Sauer appeared hesitant to respond before saying it would "depend on the circumstances".

You can read more about the historic hearing here.