Liberal and conservative media alike gave prominence Monday to the news that the Supreme Court has granted former President Donald J. Trump significant immunity from prosecution.
But the similarities end there.
Liberal media outlets criticized the decision as biased by a conservative Supreme Court. They said it only raised the stakes for the November general election by complicating the criminal case accusing Mr. Trump of trying to overturn the last election.
Many conservative media outlets gave the ruling a relatively straightforward assessment, leaving it to lower courts to decide which aspects of Mr. Trump’s conduct were immune from prosecution. But several conservative commentators nonetheless welcomed the 6-3 decision and chided Democrats who opposed it.
Here’s how a selection of media outlets covered the news:
FROM THE LEFT
MeidasTouch
The court’s decision found that Mr. Trump was immune from prosecution for “official” acts during his presidency, but said he was not immune from prosecution for “unofficial” conduct.
Such immunity was necessary to maintain “a vigorous and independent executive,” according to the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The decision also said a district court would have to decide what constituted official and unofficial conduct, including Mr. Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021. That process would likely delay any trial of Mr. Trump until after the November election.
“It couldn’t be worse for our democracy,” said Ben Meiselas, co-founder of MeidasTouch, a progressive media network, said the court’s dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was “as grim, as dark and frankly terrifying” as any dissent “in the history of the Supreme Court.”
Ron Filipkowski, a lawyer and editor of the news site, argued In a legal analysis, he said the decision was a blow to checks on executive power more broadly. But he also said the decision made the November election even more important.
“The stakes in this election have become even higher than yesterday,” Mr. Filipkowski wrote.
Salon, a liberal news and opinion site, published a article The decision also featured Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, which she said made a “mockery” of the constitutional principle that no man is above the law.
“The outcome is of course a boost for Trump, but the mere fact that the court took up the case was in itself a huge help to the Trump campaign,” wrote Griffin Eckstein, a staff writer for the publication.
In other article On Monday, editor-in-chief Tatyana Tandanpolie interviewed legal experts who criticized the decision, including one who suggested the court may have “legalized murder by a single individual.”
FROM THE RIGHT
The gateway specialist
The Gateway Pundit, a far-right website that has often spread false information and conspiracy theories, celebrated Monday’s decision as a victory for Mr. Trump and for American democracy.
The decision was “not just a personal victory” for Mr. Trump, wrote Jim Hoft, the site’s founder, but a “reinforcement of the constitutional framework designed by the Founding Fathers.”
In other articleCristina Laila, deputy editor at Gateway Pundit, highlighted what she called the Biden administration’s “unbridled” statement, which she called “desperate.”
FROM THE RIGHT
City hall
Townhall, a conservative news and opinion website, mocked the many complaints from liberals about the decision.
A article The site published an article titled “American Liberals’ Reaction to Trump’s Immunity Decision Was as Unbalanced as Ever.” Matt Vespa, the site’s editor, said the decision had “led liberals to wonder if Biden could kill Trump,” referring to Justice Sotomayor’s dissent and subsequent social media posts that questioned whether presidents could now be prosecuted for any crime.
In another post, Katie Pavlich, the site’s editor-in-chief, highlighted a comment by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York Democrat who said on X that this decision “represents an attack on American democracy.”
“The inhabitants of the swamp and the accomplices in the excesses of the tyrannical government are not dealing very well with the consequences of this situation,” said Ms. Pavlich. wrote.
