The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for “official acts” during his presidency — without saying whether that includes his alleged 2020 election subversion. 

The nation’s top court left it up to lower courts to sort out what constitutes an “official act” by a sitting president — clearing the way for more appeals by Trump that could set his trial on charges he unlawfully tried to remain in power following his loss to Joe Biden back months or years, if it ever happens.

In a 6-3 majority decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court stressed that the “president is not above the law,” and that “not everything the President does is official.”

“Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties,” Roberts wrote. 

“Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives.”

Roberts further stressed that “Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”

In sending the matter back to the lower courts for further analysis, Roberts contended: “It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred with Roberts only in part — suggesting that Trump could still be charged with crimes related to his supporters concocting sworn declarations falsely stating that the 45th president had won key battleground states four years ago.

“The indictment alleges that the President ‘asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing’ about election fraud claims,” Barrett wrote.

“The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power,” she wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the dissent and was joined by Justices Elana Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 

“Our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts,” Sotomayor wrote. 

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,” she added. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Jackson penned a separate dissent in which she criticized Roberts, saying: “The official-versus-unofficial act distinction also seems both arbitrary and irrational, for it suggests that the unofficial criminal acts of a President are the only ones worthy of prosecution.

“Quite to the contrary, it is when the President commits crimes using his unparalleled official powers that the risks of abuse and autocracy will be most dire.”

Lawyers for Trump, 78, who appointed three of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, unfurled a legal theory of sweeping protection from prosecution for any acts undertaken while in office in a bid to quash the four-count case against the former president.

The 45th president is accused of criminally attempting “to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit” to obstruct the electoral vote process, “impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified” and working “against the right to vote and to have that vote counted.”

The former president’s camp claimed many of his efforts were “official acts” protected by his office, while special counsel Jack Smith argued, in Roberts’ words, “that a former President does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for any actions, regardless of how they are characterized.”

Presiding US District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s “immunity” theory last year in a decision that was later upheld by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

During one eye-catching exchange before the appeals court, Judge Florence Pan posed a hypothetical scenario involving “a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival (and is) not impeached” and asked, “Would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Trump lawyer John Sauer answered that a president would have to be impeached and convicted first.

Chutkan had put proceedings in the case on hold pending the Supreme Court appeal.

Many legal experts posited that Smith’s position against absolute immunity was a slam dunk and anticipated the Supreme Court would spurn Trump’s plea.

But during oral arguments in April, it was clear that the conservative justices were agonizing over the question, seemingly hunting for some sort of middle ground and insinuating that the lower courts didn’t do enough due diligence.

In his opinion, Roberts indeed criticized the circuit court for a “lack of factual analysis” of the question and warned that “unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on ‘transient results’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic.”

The justices had also fretted that tossing out Trump’s immunity case entirely could pave the way for politically laced tit-for-tat prosecutions down the road.

“I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives,” Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed at one point.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages.”

In the run-up to the top court’s decision, President Biden stayed largely mum, but did say in December he “can’t think of one” reason why presidents should have total immunity from prosecution.

Following the opinion, the president’s re-election campaign issued a statement reiterating their refrain that Trump had “snapped” following his loss to Biden and “encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.

“Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself,” added the Biden-Harris campaign, which concluded by calling on voters to reject the presumptive Republican nominee’s “self-obsessed quest for power.”

In a series of posts on Truth Social, Trump hailed the court’s ruling as a “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY” and said he was “PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

“Today’s Historic Decision by the Supreme Court should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me, including the New York Hoaxes – The Manhattan SCAM cooked up by Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, Racist New York Attorney General Tish James’ shameless ATTACK on the amazing business that I have built, and the FAKE Bergdorf’s ‘case,'” he added.

“The Supreme Court totally dismantled most of the charges against me. Joe Biden should now call off his ‘dogs,'” read another post by Trump. “Our Country should now be focused on GREATNESS again!”

In addition to the 2020 election subversion case, Trump is charged by Smith with 40 counts out of South Florida related to the former president’s hoarding of national security information after he left office in January 2021.

If Trump is elected the 47th president Nov. 5, he could theoretically tell the Justice Department to drop the federal cases against him.

Another possibility — although an untested one — is that Trump could attempt to pardon himself for any offenses committed before, during or after the 2020 election.

“We’ve never answered whether a president can do that,” Gorsuch mused during oral arguments about the prospect of a self-pardon. “Happily, it’s never been presented to us.”

Trump is also facing a state-level indictment out of Georgia on charges that he and his allies conspired to overturn the 2020 election result there. Trial in that case is on hold while the former president’s defense tries to oust Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the case over a conflict of interest claim.

On May 30, Trump was convicted by a Manhattan jury of 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide evidence of hush money payments to ex-porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. He is set to be sentenced in that case July 11 — one week before he is due to accept the Republican nomination.