Supreme Court Rules On Trump Immunity

In what many view as the most important decision of the term, the Supreme Court's conservative majority Monday ruled that former Presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for 'official' actions carried out when they were president.

And, as it applies to the case of former President Trump, it will now be up to a lower court to decide which of his actions following the 2020 election would be considered 'official' and which would not.

Given the current makeup of the Court, there was not much surprise in the majority's ruling to give Trump some immunity, but nothing absolute. The opinion still leaves significant gray area and ultimately puts the burden on prosecutors to show the actions of a former president do not qualify for immunity.

For the most part, the 6-3 decision is being seen as a win for the former President, as it gives a presumption of criminal immunity for actions that are construed as official -- part of the President's core statutory responsibilities.

"Today’s ruling affirms the constitutional authority of the executive," said Oklahoma Congressman Kevin Hern (R-OK1) in a statement, "and ensures that presidents of any party won’t be targeted by their political opponents for doing their job."

The majority made clear that, depending on circumstances and specifics, not all official actions would be shielded from criminal liability and there is no immunity for nonofficial -- or private -- actions. Special Counsel Jack Smith's election fraud case against Mr. Trump is, therefore, still alive, but was remanded back to District Court where the judge will have to determine which, if any, actions Smith has raised, are prosecutable under the ruling.

"There is an enormous amount of legal work that is now going to have to unfold over the next several months," Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Thomas Dupree, Jr. told CBS News. "That means the chances of a trial before the election are zero at this point."

In a blistering dissent, the minority said the notion that Trump's post-election actions -- leading to the January 6 insurrection -- could be twisted into official, and thus protected, conduct is not only nonsensical, but inconsistent with the constitution and historical precedent.

"It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Outside the Court, the few demonstrators on hand were mostly anti-Trump, and were disappointed.

"It’s just unconscionable," said Gary Roush, an artist from College Park, Maryland, "the idea that the American people will go to the polls in November now...not knowing for sure, did Donald Trump participate in a coup, a soft coup? Was he indeed an insurrectionist?"

And if Trump wins at the polls in November, it's very possible that those questions may never be answered in a court of law.