At a campaign rally in Michigan on August 7, 2024 Democratic candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris Claimed Former President and 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump will now be “immune from anything he does in the White House” due to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.

Verdict: No evidence

While some experts said Harris's claims were correct, others stressed that they were an “inaccurate description” of the ruling and that the ruling did not provide “complete immunity.”

Fact check:

new USA Today/Suffolk University/WSVN-TV Poll According to the media, Harris is “within striking distance” of Trump in Florida, with 42% of those surveyed supporting her and 47% supporting Trump.

During the rally, Harris argued that the US Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity means that President Trump will now be “immune from anything he does in the White House.”

“The United States Supreme Court has essentially told a former president who was convicted of fraud that he will be immune from anything he does in the White House going forward,” Harris said.

This claim is unfounded. Harris is referring to July 1st Supreme Court ruling Presidential Immunity SCOTUS BlogAccording to a blog that covers the Supreme Court but is not affiliated with it, the justices ruled that “former presidents can never be prosecuted for acts related to the core powers of their office and are presumed to enjoy immunity, at least for official acts more broadly defined.” In other words, the ruling applies to the president's “official acts.”

Similarly, on July 1, Reuters The ruling applies to the president's “official acts” but not his “unofficial acts,” the report said. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and The Hill The court also emphasized that the ruling only applies to “official duties” and distinguishes between “absolute immunity” and “constructive immunity.”

According to the same Hill opinion piece, “absolute immunity” comes from the Constitution, which gives the president “definitive and exclusive power” through the executive branch and prohibits the legislature from enacting laws that “restrict” the president. Similarly, “presumed immunity” applies to “official acts” when “prosecution would usurp the power of the executive branch.”

An ACLU spokesperson referred Check Your Fact to the aforementioned commentary the group wrote about the ruling.

The sentence follows an indictment filed against Trump for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The indictment alleges that Trump “conspired to overturn the results of the election.” [the election] The ruling said Trump “knowingly spread false claims of election fraud in order to interfere with the collection, counting, and certification of the election results.” Trump argued at the time that he was acting within the scope of his official duties as president, making him immune from criminal prosecution.

Several legal experts offered differing takes on Harris' claims on Check Your Facts.

Jeremy PaulA Northeastern University law professor said Harris's allegations were true, but that the reality was “much more complicated.”

“If you were to fact-check Ms. Harris's allegations, you would say they are true, but the reality is more complicated than that. The Supreme Court has ruled that the president is immune from criminal prosecution when he takes actions that are deemed official,” Paul said.

“Harris' statement has a weakness: the president could still be impeached, but impeachment would be nearly impossible to achieve. [two] “The political parties are polarized. As Vice President Harris is trying to say, it's nearly impossible to get the president to follow the law.”

“The Supreme Court has made exceptions for the president's unofficial conduct. If the president gets into a bar fight, for example, he can be prosecuted. But I think she's fundamentally right, because we're not concerned about bar fights, we're concerned about abuse of power. So she's right, even if it's not very well stated,” he added.

Michael GerhardtA professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law said Harris' claims are “largely, if not entirely, true.”

“I believe this charge is largely, if not entirely, true. The Supreme Court has said that the president has complete immunity from criminal prosecution for any act he does in the exercise of the core powers of his presidency. Further, the Court has said that no official act may be used as evidence of intent. Thus, the president can effectively pretend to have legal immunity as long as he claims to be exercising core powers. What makes this comment clear is that the Supreme Court has said that the president can be held liable for unofficial acts, but has defined them as acts done in his personal capacity,” he said.

John MalcolmThe vice president of the Institute for Constitutional and Governmental Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation said Harris' argument was an “inaccurate portrayal” of the decision.

“Of course, Ms. Harris's vague phrase is 'essentially,' but I think this is nevertheless an inaccurate description of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States.”

“The Supreme Court has said that former presidents enjoy 'absolute immunity' only for a small portion of their 'official duties' performed while in office – specifically, acts that arose from the president's 'exclusive powers' under the Constitution,” Malcolm said.

“The Supreme Court has stated that for the vast majority of presidential 'official functions' — specifically, those actions arising from the president's concurrent powers with Congress under the Constitution and from statutory powers Congress has granted the president — former presidents enjoy only 'presumed immunity.' And, like other presumptions, that presumption can be overturned by a prosecutor who shows that the presidential conduct was so outrageous that proceeding with a prosecution would not 'risk an infringement of the powers and functions of the executive branch.'”

“And in no case do former presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution for 'official conduct' (i.e., personal conduct) conducted while in office.”

“The Supreme Court also remanded the case for an initial attempt to determine which of the conduct charged against Mr. Trump in the federal trial in Washington falls into which category,” he added.

Jeevna ShethJohn F. Kennedy, a senior policy analyst for courts and legal policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said the Supreme Court's decision “effectively put the president above the law.”

“The Supreme Court has essentially placed the president above the law. It has significantly expanded presidential power by allowing the president to use 'official acts' to escape prosecution for illegal acts. The Court has given the president unprecedented criminal immunity for official acts and presumed immunity for unofficial acts committed while in office. The Court's lack of clearly defined standards for these terms, combined with the fact that the majority prohibited prosecutors from using evidence of official acts to prosecute unofficial acts, will make it extremely difficult for the federal government to hold the president accountable,” Sheth said.

Walter OlsonJohn F. Kennedy, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, said the ruling “grant[s]broad but not total immunity.”

“Trump v. United States gave former presidents broad immunity, but not total immunity. The Court separated possible actions by a sitting president into three categories and applied different rules to each,” Olson said.

“Informal actions taken by the president are no exception, as both sides agreed in the Trump case. This can get tricky because it's not always clear what is informal and what is official. In the New York fraudulent business records case, prosecutors took the view that Trump's signing of checks arising from a prior agreement to pay hush money was not an official act, even though he signed the checks on his desk in the White House. (Trump has not necessarily accepted this position.) Harris might argue that her wording is about right, because “what he does at the White House” could also mean “what he does in his official capacity,” and she also uses the word “essentially,” which suggests a simplification of a complex point.”

“But another problem is that the Supreme Court has divided official acts themselves into two categories, one of which enjoys absolute immunity and the other does not. The first (absolute) immunity pertains to the use of some powers that are vested only in the President, such as vetoing legislation, appointing ambassadors, and various other constitutional functions. The second pertains to presidential powers that, while formal, are outside the scope of core executive powers. This may include powers that the President shares with Congress. Prosecutors may seek to punish acts in this category only if they demonstrate that doing so “would not pose a risk of infringement on the powers and functions of the Executive Branch.” This can be a difficult hurdle for prosecutors to overcome, and the President often has cases dismissed if they fall into this intermediate category. Yet the President does not enjoy absolute immunity in this intermediate range. Again, Harris' use of the word “essentially” may have signaled to his audience that he was being somewhat simplistic,” he explained.

Kim WaleThe University of Baltimore law professor would only say, “She's right.”

Check Your Fact has also reached out to spokespeople for Harris and Trump for comment.