The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision will further delay Trump’s Washington criminal case related to his efforts to stop the transfer of power in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, virtually guaranteeing that Trump’s trial won’t start before Election Day.

Instead, the high court’s ruling sets the stage for hearings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on what allegations in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment should be considered official acts and, therefore, potentially immune from prosecution. Her ultimate decisions could then be subjected to further appeal, meaning that a Trump trial is unlikely to happen until well into 2025. If Trump wins in November, a trial is unlikely to happen at all.

Read the full story here.

Hillary Clinton reacted to the Supreme Court's immunity ruling on X, writing that she agreed with the final line of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

"It will be up to the American people this November to hold Donald Trump accountable," Clinton said.

Former Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, who was at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, was outside the Supreme Court for the decision today.

In a statement, he said, "The Supreme Court just further stripped the guardrails of democracy. It’s Absurd and dangerous."

He added: "The GOP and right wing leaning Supreme Court have gone rogue, detached from reality and abandoned the truth. If Biden invokes a mob and sends it to attack the Supreme Court/congress, would the GOP accept that or hold Biden accountable?"

Posting a picture on X of an article with the headline "The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially," he also said, "The Supreme Court failed to recognize that they themselves could be targeted."

Neither Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell nor Senate Minority Whip John Thune has issued a statement since the immunity ruling.

But notably, after McConnell voted to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial, the Senate GOP leader said “former presidents are not immune from being held accountable” in both criminal and civil courts.

"In the language of today, President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office," he said. "He didn’t get away with anything yet. Yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one."

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin condemned Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for not recusing themselves from the Trump immunity case.

"It is disgraceful that Justice Thomas and Alito brazenly refused to recuse themselves from this case," Durbin said. "As I've said before, the appearance of impropriety or partiality require recusal. Until Chief Justice Roberts uses his existing authority to enact an enforceable code of conduct, I will continue to push to pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act."

Democrats had called for Alito to recuse himself from two Trump-related cases over two controversial flags that were flown outside his homes in Virginia and New Jersey. Calls for Thomas to recuse himself from the cases center on trips he took that were paid for by billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow and that he failed to disclose on his financial forms. Both justices declined to step aside.

Thomas has also for years faced criticism over the political activism of his wife, Ginni Thomas.

In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas weighs in on the question argued before Judge Aileen Cannon the other day: whether Jack Smith’s appointment was legal. Thomas strongly suggested he believes that it was not, in part because no law establishes the current office of special counsel.

"I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure," Thomas wrote. "In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been 'established by Law,' as the Constitution requires."

He added that "if there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President." 

Trump legal spokesperson Alina Habba said on Fox News that she thinks "that the justices made the right decision" and that the "American people think that these cases should have never existed."

Citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Habba said that "absolute immunity is important for all presidents. I’ve said it time and time again. I’ve argued on immunity for President Trump, and I think they did get right that they recognize absolute immunity exists."

She added: “It is a good day when court rest recognizes constitutional rights of presidents and the executive branch, but we should never have been in this situation to start with. This is a disgrace to America,” and “it’s election interference at its finest.”

Habba also said she doesn't "see how this case could go forward before the election."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said in a statement posted to X that today's Supreme Court ruling is an "assault on American democracy" and that she intends to file articles of impeachment.

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," she added.

She did not say which justices she intends to target — six voted with the majority.

The House is controlled by Republicans, meaning her effort is unlikely to get traction.

Today’s decision sets out a lot of rules about what evidence can or cannot be used in Trump’s election interference trial, assuming we ever get there.

As part of today’s ruling, the court held if a certain allegation in the indictment is determined to be an “official act,” prosecutors cannot introduce “testimony or private records of the President probing the official act itself.”