A legal expert on Wednesday criticized the Supreme Court's decision regarding presidential immunity, saying he believes many Americans are “disappointed” by the ruling.
The high court's conservative majority on Tuesday ruled that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official acts within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority." The decision means that presidents hold immunity for official actions, but not for personal or unofficial activities.
The decision resonated in New York City, where Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump, postponed his sentencing until September, just months before the election.
"I think a lot of people are disappointed with this decision. And the ripple effects are going to be felt for a long time. No matter whether you're wearing red or blue goggles," said Jeremy Saland, a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan assistant district attorney, during an appearance on "Mornings On 1."
Regarding the impact on the New York hush money case, Saland noted that the ruling will be "very impactful" as it excludes certain evidence if associated with an official act during Trump’s presidency.
“It’s the words that are used, it’s communications during the presidency, it's utilizing the presidential services, there was questions about our tweets and public statements, part of those official act evidence that cannot be in a trial, even though it wasn't while he was president,” Saland said.
Though Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records to conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election, Saland said it is likely Trump will now not serve any prison time.
“It's really a sign showing there is no way, for those who thought it might happen, that Donald Trump is going to see a day in jail,” he said.
Saland, however, said the decision could be altered.
“They're not chiseled in stone. They are right now, but that can be seen as new cases come out down the road with a new decision,” he said.