The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that presidents possess some immunity from criminal prosecution, a decision likely to impact cases against former President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., and Georgia.

The Supreme Court's decision requires a lower court to determine which of Trump's actions are immune as official presidential duties, and the entire scenario has potentially thrown Fani Willis' prosecution of Trump in Fulton County into chaos, as the Washington Examiner reports.

The high court's ruling was in response to arguments from Trump and will have ramifications for his legal battles in Washington, D.C., and Georgia.

A lower court judge now has the task of deciding which of Trump's actions are official and therefore immune from prosecution. In Washington, Judge Tanya Chutkan is responsible for determining whether Trump’s acts are absolutely or presumptively immune.

Impact on Georgia Case and Potential Legal Battles

In Georgia, a similar process may unfold as courts work to identify immune actions. Legal experts suggest this process could evolve into a mini-trial lasting several months. The Supreme Court guidelines imply that the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington could be weakened if acts deemed immune are removed.

Trump is facing four charges in Washington related to federal election interference. Additionally, Willis has charged Trump and 18 co-defendants with violating Georgia's racketeering laws to overturn the 2020 election result.

The Supreme Court’s guidance asserts that presidential communication with the Department of Justice is always immune. Other presidential acts, such as communication with state officials or public statements, might also be immune but require a court’s determination.

Challenges for Fulton County District Attorney

This ruling could potentially undermine Willis’s indictment in Georgia. Earlier this year, Judge Scott McAfee ruled that Willis was not disqualified from Trump's Georgia case, a decision Trump has appealed. The Georgia Court of Appeals is currently reviewing this appeal.

McAfee is awaiting the Supreme Court's decision to address Trump’s request for case dismissal on immunity grounds.

Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, a noted legal expert, said that it is unlikely the trial court will have jurisdiction to rule on this motion or conduct its own mini-trial before the upcoming election.

Lawrence-Hardy also observed that Trump's immunity argument to the Supreme Court is closely aligned with his briefing in the Georgia case.

Implications for Co-Defendants and Future Proceedings

The impact of the ruling on Trump’s co-defendants remains unclear. Legal experts have speculated on possible outcomes for individuals like Jeffrey Clark and Mark Meadows.

Anthony Michael Kreis, a legal analyst, opined that it is unlikely Clark will face charges in the same case as Trump. He noted that Meadows’s case is more complex but has not been ruled out.

The cases in both Washington and Georgia may extend over several months. If Trump were to win the upcoming presidential election, he could attempt to pardon himself in the federal case, though he cannot pardon himself in the Georgia case.

This decision by the Supreme Court adds a layer of complexity to the legal proceedings against Trump, with significant implications for the ongoing cases. The determination of what constitutes official presidential duties will play a critical role in the outcome of these high-profile legal battles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity could significantly affect the criminal cases against Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., and Georgia.

With lower courts tasked with determining which actions are immune, the cases may undergo lengthy proceedings.

The ruling poses challenges for the prosecutors, particularly in Georgia, and raises questions about the implications for Trump’s co-defendants and the potential for a presidential pardon in federal cases.