Marshall says that he is proud of Alabama's briefs in favor of Trump's successful case before the U.S. Supreme Court

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6 to 3 ruling giving President's "Absolute" immunity in their official actions. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) celebrated the decision in Trump v. United States.

The Supreme Court overruled the D.C. Circuit's decision that former President Trump has no immunity from criminal prosecution. The majority held that "our constitutional structure of separated powers" entitles a former President to some absolute and some presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as President.

"The Supreme Court recognized that until now our Nation has never before needed an answer' for when a former President could face prosecution," AG Marshall said in a statement. "If Biden were confident that he could win an election without his Justice Department prosecuting his political opponent, we would not have needed one today. But the Supreme Court correctly threw a wrench in this sordid scheme,. I am proud of our critical briefs which advocated for the protection of the Constitution and the office of the presidency. I hope that the district court will get the message and dismiss this abusive prosecution. I look forward to working with a reelected President Trump to reverse the disasters of this Administration and make America great for all Americans."

In March, Attorney General Marshall led an 18-state brief supporting former President Trump's immunity case before the Supreme Court. The brief argued that presidential immunity is a necessary bulwark against partisan prosecutions-a possibility the Founders of our Nation greatly feared. The brief suggested that the timing of DOJ's prosecution reflects improper motives, particularly since it began only after former President Trump announced his campaign and President Biden remarked that he was "making sure" President Trump would not "take power." The amicus brief also pointed to other prosecutions of President Trump around the country-the Special Counsel's case in Florida and the Georgia and New York prosecutions-as evidence of the possibility of partisan abuse of the justice system.

Marshall, a committed Trump supporter, has published an op-ed in Newsweek defending the Supreme Court against the partisan attack that its normal certiorari review was politically motivated.

In February, Marshall successfully led a group of 22 states urging the Supreme Court to resist the prosecution's urgency and to review the case on a normal timeline, rather than acquiesce to a politically motivated timeline. In December, the Attorney General successfully led another multi-state brief opposing the Special Counsel's extraordinary request that the Supreme Court skip over appeal in the D.C. Circuit to facilitate a rush to trial before the election.

The case has been sent back to District Court where the Judge must rule on a Trump defense team motion to dismiss. If Judge Tanya Chatkan does not dismiss the case she must set a trial date for the case.

The ruling leaves Special Counsel Jack Smith's case in tatters and leaves Smith with few good options moving forward.

The Supreme Court ruled that Presidents have absolute immunity in their official actions and no ability in their nonofficial actions. This clearly puts some of the indictments in Smith's case in legal jeopardy, possibly all of them. Judge Chatkan is going to have to rule on whether or not Trump's actions were official or unofficial in order to determine whether or not he can be prosecuted.

The Supreme Court ruling also casts doubts on the charges levied against Trump in the State of Georgia by Fulton County District Attorney Fanni Willis.

To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com