Good morning. Fireworks this year are courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has all but assured that Republican nominee Donald Trump won’t face a federal trial on 2020 election interference before this year’s election. The high court, breaking along ideological lines, ruled that presidents are entitled to a broad halo of immunity for official acts. It sent a federal case back to a lower court judge to determine if charges tied to the Jan. 6 effort to block certification of Joe Biden’s win can be pursued. That delay effectively means that the prospect of a pre-election trial this year is remote. The 116 pages of opinions by the court – the main opinion, the concurrence and dissents – are worth a read.

Reaction from Minnesota politicians fell predictably along party lines. Here’s a sampling:

• U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer, the chair of Trump’s 2024 campaign in Minnesota, said the “Supreme Court decision is a positive step in the right direction of ending their senseless lawfare.”

• Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar quoted a dissenting opinion that said criminal law will no longer be a backstop for a rogue president. “The president can’t be above the law,” Klobuchar added. 

• Democratic Sen. Tina Smith called the decision contrary to long-standing principles that power must be checked. “Donald Trump incited a violent insurrection on January 6th. I was there when it happened. He should be held accountable, but thanks to his Supreme Court and its decision today, he very well may get away with it.”

• Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat and the longest-serving delegation member,  railed against “the danger posed to our democracy by a radical court that is determined to support the acts of the former president and his followers.”

• Rep. Brad Finstad, a Republican and the only delegation member not in office during the 2020 election, said the “Supreme Court decision upholds the Constitution by establishing that a president cannot be prosecuted for official actions. This is a step in the right direction and a victory for American democracy.” 

• Rep. Angie Craig, a Democrat in a swing district, said the ruling “sets a dangerous legal precedent that paves the way for former and future presidents to abuse the power of their office.” 

This ruling, along with others handed down recently by the 6-3 conservative majority, put attention back on the Supreme Court’s makeup. The same court fueled a surge in Democratic voter intensity in 2022 after overturning Roe v. Wade abortion protections. Democrats are dealing with a voter intensity gap in public polling and could use the decisions to raise the stakes among voters who are disappointed in the rulings. There are likely to be one or more seats that come open on the high court to be filled by the president inaugurated in 2025.