The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity exposed flaws in special counsel Jack Smith's indictments on Donald Trump and weakened the ability of future special counsels in their investigations of presidents, legal experts say.
The court's 6-3 ruling that the "official acts" of presidents are immune from being prosecuted, while unofficial acts are not, did not leave a clear line but still will limit the evidence that prosecutors can present in the Jan. 6 case, The Washington Post reported.
Further, the ruling has led to challenges in former President Donald Trump's New York felony convictions, including with the judge pushing his sentencing date to September when it was to have been held this Thursday.
Jessica Tillipman, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School, said the ruling comes while the Supreme Court's conservative majority "has a lot of skepticism of prosecutorial discretion."
"This immunity case is yet another offshoot of this ongoing suspicion or dislike," she added.
Conservative lawyers, meanwhile, said the decision was predictable, considering the court has repeatedly ruled against Justice Department officials in such cases.
"Smith's team pushed the court into adopting a legal rule that massively constrained prosecutorial power vis-à-vis former presidents, not just for Trump but for all future presidents," said James Burnham, a former law clerk for Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, told the Post.
Trump is facing four counts in connection with the Jan. 6 protests, including conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.
Burnham said Smith and the DOJ overreached by filing the charges on Trump based on his discussions with then-Vice President Mike Pence and DOJ officials, who are government officials and would fall under the court's immunity ruling on official business.
"Smith has nobody to blame but himself," he said.
Burnham also commented on Chief Justice John Roberts' wording in the immunity decision, where he mentioned a 2016 decision overturning the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell, a Republican.
The governor's case involved more than $175,000 in loans and gifts received from a businessman seeking to have state universities perform tests on his company's dietary supplement.
In that McDonnell ruling, Roberts wrote that the DOJ's prosecution "could cast a pall of potential prosecution" over government officials, and he cited the phrase in the Trump decision, saying a president could be hindered based on fear of prosecution.