WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump can be tried for any of his efforts to overturn his 2020 loss that were not taken in his official capacity,  a decision that likely came too late for a trial to be completed before election day.

Deciding for the first time whether presidents are immune from criminal prosecution, a divided Supreme Court said “official” acts taken by a president are protected but not steps he took as a candidate.

“The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority that divided along ideological lines. “They also agree that some of the conduct described in the indictment includes actions taken by Trump in his unofficial capacity.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the majority’s decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

Sotomayor said the court gave Trump “all the immunity he asked for and more.”

Roberts criticized the dissenters for doomsaying rather than acknowledging the lower courts will determine whether Trump’s conduct is vulnerable to criminal charges.

“As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today – conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity,” Roberts wrote.

Trump, on Truth Social, called the decision a “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.”

The case was crucial test for the court and its six conservative justices, half of whom were appointed by Trump.

The time it took the high court to issue its opinion leaves a tight timeline to hold a trial that was originally scheduled for March.

If Trump wins the election in November, he could order the Justice Department to dismiss any federal case against him. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump last August on four charges, to which he’s pleaded not guilty.

Trump is accused of trying to steal the 2020 election by spreading lies about election fraud and attempting to persuade state officials, his vice president and Congress to prevent the certification of the legitimate results.

Trump, the first president – former or current – to be criminally charged, argued he can’t be prosecuted for actions he took in his official capacity during his administration, an extension of the reasoning the Supreme Court used in 1982 when it barred civil suits against a president for official actions.

Otherwise, Trump’s attorneys argued, the threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would destroy the strength and authority of the presidency by subjecting them to politically motivated prosecutions.

A New York Jury in May found Trump guilty of falsifying business records to hide a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The state judge had rejected Trump’s effort to delay that trial until the Supreme Court ruled on the immunity question.

Trump has also claimed immunity in his federal case in Florida for allegedly hoarding classified documents after leaving the White House, and in his election interference case in Georgia.

First ruling on criminal immunity

In January, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity. But the Supreme Court stepped in to decide for the first time if there are barriers to the criminal prosecutions of presidents.

The Court had previously said presidents are immune from civil lawsuits for official actions taken while president though not from lawsuits tied to their personal behavior.

Smith, the special counsel, argued presidents can still function effectively without criminal immunity, a protection he said neither the framers of the Constitution nor any other president contemplated.

And even if a former president has some immunity, Smith said, trying to thwart the peaceful transfer of power is a perfect example of conduct that should not be protected from prosecution.

During more than two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments in April, several conservative justices signaled they were more focused on how a ruling would affect future presidents than − as Justice Brett Kavanaugh put it − the “here and now of this case.”

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Decision took time

The Supreme Court has decided other high-profile cases much faster than Trump’s immunity claim.

Smith asked the court to reject the claim quickly in December, after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled Trump must stand trial. But instead the high court waited for the D.C. Circuit to also rule that Trump isn’t immune.

In contrast, the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s name to remain on the Colorado primary ballot less than a month after hearing arguments about removing it because of his role in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

And in 1974, the court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over secret tapes of White House conversations 16 days after hearing arguments.

Alito, Thomas did not recuse

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas rejected calls from Democrats that they recuse themselves from deciding the case.

Alito’s wife, Marth-Ann Alito, flew flags over the couple’s homes that were adopted by some Trump supporters trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, has argued repeatedly the 2020 election was stolen and attended Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, 2021.

The case is Trump v. United States.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court says Trump immune for ‘official’ but not ‘private’ acts