Trump’s near-total Supreme Court victory: From the Politics Desk

Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team’s latest reporting and analysis from the campaign trail, the White House and Capitol Hill.

In today’s edition, senior national politics reporter Jonathan Allen breaks down a good day for Donald Trump at the Supreme Court. Plus, senior politics editor Mark Murray and campaign embed Katherine Koretski explore the key role infrequent voters could play in this year’s election.

Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.

Trump’s near-total Supreme Court victory

By Jonathan Allen

Donald Trump won a near-total victory Monday at the Supreme Court on several fronts.

The 6-3 majority opinion grants him — and future presidents — broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in conjunction with their office, all but ensures that he won’t face trial in his federal election interference case before November’s election and endorses his view that the nation’s chief executive should be endowed with almost unlimited powers.

It’s not yet clear how voters will view the Trump-friendly court’s ruling, which broke down along the familiar lines of the six justices appointed by Republicans banding together to overcome the three justices appointed by Democrats.

Do you have a news tip? Let us know

Though Trump did not get the total immunity he says he’s entitled to, the court appeared to give presidents even more protection than his lawyers sought. Ultimately, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, built three buckets for consideration of criminal activity by a president: official acts, unofficial acts and acts that aren’t easily categorized as either.

The president is immune from prosecution for official acts, but does not get a legal shield for actions taken outside official duties. But for the third category, Roberts wrote, courts must make determinations on a case-by-case basis, with the president enjoying a considerable advantage: a “presumptive immunity.” 

That puts the burden on special counsel Jack Smith to show that Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election were undertaken beyond the “outer perimeter” of official acts. Further, Roberts concluded, acts for which the president is immune from prosecution may not be used as evidence in prosecuting charges related to unofficial acts. 

Roberts called the decision “one for the ages” — an apparent bid to convince the public that this was about more than Trump. And, in reality, it is now about the expansion of presidential powers. 

But the question was raised — and answered — with Trump’s extraordinary effort to reverse the 2020 election looming far larger and closer than lasting changes to the balance of power. Trump is a unique figure in American political history, and he has pushed the boundaries of presidential power both as commander in chief and a former holder of that role.

One good way to know the decision was about this moment and not the sweep of history and the Constitution: the vagueness of the court’s rules for divining the difference between official and unofficial acts. The opinion is an invitation for every future decision by a lower-court judge on that question to be brought back before the Supreme Court.

Roberts also went out of his way to write that the president is not above the law. But the ruling makes clear the president is above being held accountable for a wide array of offenses that might otherwise be criminal. The president may not be above the law, but in Roberts’ construct he is above his fellow citizens and above being prosecuted for many crimes.

From an electoral perspective, the opinion gives Trump at least temporary validation for his claim that he did nothing illegal. That remains to be determined, but Smith’s case just got a lot more complicated.

Democrats will have to make the case that electing Trump to an office that is now more powerful than the one he left is a nightmare for the country. But President Joe Biden, weakened by his disastrous debate performance last week and long averse to criticizing the court publicly, may be an unlikely figure to do that effectively. He might not have it in his constitution.

Read more from NBC News’ Lawrence Hurley on what the court’s ruling could mean for future presidents →

Meet the sporadic voters who could decide the 2024 election

By Mark Murray and Katherine Koretski

Neither Joseph Mitchum nor Laura Brooks participated in the last presidential election four years ago.

But voters like them could very well decide the outcome of this November’s race for the White House.

Mitchum, who hails from Georgia, and Brooks, who lives in Michigan, both participated in NBC News surveys this year and told pollsters that they’d support Trump over Biden — reflecting a broad trend across public polling showing Trump with a sizable advantage among those who didn’t vote in 2020. 

Findings from NBC News’ last three national polls — all taken before last week’s debate — show a whopping 25-point swing toward Trump among voters who didn’t participate in both 2020 and 2022, compared to voters who cast ballots in the last two national elections.

If those voters turn out this time, it could make the difference between winning and losing for Trump. And both Mitchum and Brooks underscore the big question of whether these non-2020 voters will actually show up in November. 

Mitchum, 24, said he’s definitely voting in 2024 — after not being registered to vote in 2020. “Yes, I am going to vote,” he told NBC News in a follow-up interview. 

“I really don’t like what’s going on with our border,” he added, explaining why he supports Trump. “Another is I am partial to my gun rights.”

But Brooks, 25, said in her follow-up interview that she’s probably not voting in November, though she said she’d support Trump in a poll. (Like Mitchum, Brooks wasn’t registered to vote in 2020.) 

“Biden, he seems to be just a little senile now,” she told NBC News. “And with Trump, there’s all the legal stuff around him that’s happening.”

“I’ve never seen such a pony show,” Brooks added. 

Read more on 2024’s sporadic voters →

That’s all from the Politics Desk for now. If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at politicsnewsletter@nbcuni.com

And if you’re a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here.