Vice President Kamala Harris often says the U.S. Supreme Court is emboldening former President Donald Trump to do as he pleases in a second term without fear of getting in trouble with the law.
"The United States Supreme Court basically told the former president that he will effectively be immune no matter what he does in the White House," Harris said during a Sept. 12 rally in Greensboro, N.C.
The vice president is talking about a major decision by the court relating to the ongoing case against Trump for trying to overturn the last presidential election.
The ruling in July sharply limits the power to hold a former president accountable in the criminal justice system.
The court found that ex-presidents must be given "absolute immunity" from prosecution for actions taken as part of their constitutional powers while in office, and broad immunity for other official acts.
RELATED STORY | Truth Be Told: Debunking Trump's abortion claims
A president can still face prosecution for unofficial acts.
"The president is not above the law," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, but he declined to say exactly what makes something an "unofficial act," leaving that question to lower courts to try to decide another day.
"We don't really know how broad the scope of presidential immunity is, but at least the way the supreme court articulated it, it could be extremely broad," said George Washington University law professor Paul Schiff Berman.
The ruling also makes it challenging to build a case against an ex-president suspected of committing any crime in office, Berman said.
"You can't use evidence that bleeds into the official acts, so it may be impossible to prosecute the unofficial acts as well," he said.
Harris' claim that the Supreme Court "basically told Trump that he would be effectively immune no matter what he does" is mostly true.
The Supreme Court greatly expanded the legal immunity provided to presidents during their time in office.
While that protection doesn't cover "unofficial acts," it's not clear yet what conduct the justices had in mind.
This ruling opens the door for any president in the future, whether Trump, Harris or someone else, to at least argue that any potentially illegal conduct was part of their official duties of the office and not subject to prosecution.
