在一个历史性裁决周一，美国最高法院表示，前总统唐纳德·特朗普有权因担任总统的“官方”行为而免于刑事起诉，但不包括任何“非官方”行为。
6比3的决定可能对特朗普的各种未决刑事案件产生重大影响，特别是特别顾问杰克·史密斯的联邦案件特朗普因涉嫌试图推翻2020年大选而面临四项重罪指控。
总统的“官方”和“非官方”行为在意见中没有明确定义，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨承认这可能会提出“困难的问题”
“某些指控——如涉及特朗普与代理司法部长讨论的指控——很容易根据总统与该个人所担任职务的官方关系的性质进行分类，”罗伯茨在意见中写道。“其他指控——如涉及特朗普与副总统、州官员和某些私人政党的互动，以及他对公众的评论——提出了更困难的问题。”
除了宪法中规定的核心总统职责之外，只要“没有明显或明显超越其权限”，官方职能“外围”内的行为将被视为豁免。
将由下级法院决定所涉行为是官方的还是非官方的。
前检察官、美国广播公司新闻法律撰稿人克里斯·蒂蒙斯(Chris Timmons)说:“(官方行为)是你期望总统做的事情——这是一种核心的总统职责，就像担任军队总司令一样。”。“例如，如果美国总统派军队去黎巴嫩，他就不会被控谋杀。”
法律专家告诉美国广播公司新闻，尽管这一裁决在很大程度上被认为是特朗普的胜利，但这远不是一张免费的出狱卡——特别是当涉及到对他不是作为总统而是作为候选人采取的行动进行起诉时。
当谈到特朗普入伍的指控时“假选举人”例如，要推翻对他有利的2020年选举，可能很难辩称这是在他作为总统的官方身份下完成的。
北卡罗来纳大学的宪法专家迈克尔·格哈特(Michael Gerhardt)告诉美国广播公司新闻(ABC News)，“与假选举人的互动不是一位总统作为其官方职责的一部分所做的事情，而是一位候选人作为其竞选活动的一部分所做的事情。”“这使得法院可以说，我认为在这种情况下，特朗普与假选举人的互动确实是在非官方的一方，而不是官方的。”
即便如此，将判决踢给下级法院几乎肯定会给针对特朗普的未决诉讼设置障碍，在大选前进一步拖慢这些诉讼。
“法院基本上说，只要特朗普或任何一位总统声称他所做的是官方行为，那么他的行为就被推定为符合宪法，检察官有责任找到证据来推翻这一推定，这并不容易，”Gerhardt说。
一些法律专家预计，史密斯可能会重新评估针对特朗普的联邦案件，可能会放弃一些由于最高法院的裁决而变得更加不稳定的因素。
前联邦检察官、卡多佐法学教授杰西卡·罗斯(Jessica Roth)告诉美国广播公司新闻网(ABC News)，“一个选择是尽量简化案件，只处理那些特朗普承认是非官方的行为，或者那些杰克·史密斯认为他最有可能说服法院的行为是非官方的，然后在此基础上继续进行，以提高效率。”“或者，他想变得更激进，试图在案件中保留更多指控，从最终获胜的角度来看，这对他来说可能风险更大?”
What constitutes an 'official act' by a president?
In ahistoric rulingon Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court said former President Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for "official" acts taken as president, but not for any "unofficial" acts.
The 6-3 decision could have major implications for the various criminal cases pending against Trump -- especially special counselJack Smith’s federal case, for which Trump faces four felony counts for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
What constitutes an "official" versus an "unofficial" act by the president is not precisely defined in the opinion, and Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged it could raise "difficult questions."
"Certain allegations -- such as those involving Trump's discussions with the Acting Attorney General -- are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President's official relationship to the office held by that individual," Roberts wrote in the opinion. "Other allegations -- such as those involving Trump's interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public -- present more difficult questions."
In addition to the core presidential duties laid out in the Constitution, conduct within the "outer perimeter" of official functions would be deemed immune as long as it is "not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority."
It would be up to the lower courts to determine whether the conduct in question is considered official or unofficial.
"[Official acts are] something that you would expect the president to do -- kind of a core presidential duty, like acting as Commander-in-Chief of the military," said Chris Timmons, a former prosecutor and ABC News legal contributor. "If the president of the United States sent troops to Lebanon, for example, he couldn't be prosecuted for murder."
Though the ruling has been largely deemed a win for Trump, it’s far from a get-out-of-jail-free card, legal experts told ABC News -- particularly when it comes to prosecution for actions he took not as the president but as a candidate.
When it comes to allegations that Trump enlisted"fake electors"to overturn the 2020 election in his favor, for example, it would likely be difficult to argue that was done in his official capacity as president.
"The interaction with fake electors is not something a president does as part of his official duties -- it is something a candidate does as part of their campaign," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. "That allows the court to say, I think rightly in this case, that Trump's interaction with the fake electors is really on the unofficial side, rather than official."
Even so, punting the decision to the lower courts is almost certain to throw obstacles in the way of the pending litigation against Trump, slowing them down even further ahead of the election.
"The court basically said that as long as Trump or any president claims that what he was doing was acting officially, then his actions are presumptively constitutional, and it's up to the prosecutor to find evidence to overcome that presumption, and that is not going to be easy," Gerhardt said.
Some legal experts expect Smith may reevaluate the federal case against Trump, possibly jettisoning some elements that could prove shakier due to the Supreme Court ruling.
"One option is to try to streamline the case considerably to only those acts that either Trump conceded were unofficial, or those acts plus some that Jack Smith thinks he has the best chance of persuading the courts are unofficial, and then proceed on that basis in the interest of efficiency," Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor and Cardozo Law professor, told ABC News. "Or does he want to be more aggressive and try to keep more of the allegations in the case, which might be more risky for him in terms of ultimately prevailing?"
