meaning of pass up homework

Please pass up ... Please go down ...

Please pass up your homework by today.

May I know the words pass up in the sentence above are correctly used or hand in are more suitable? As i know, the meaning of pass up is reject. I have heard a lot of teachers and lecturers had used pass up in this way in my country.

Please go down the bus[/b] Are go down should be replaced by get off ? I have used “are” in the sentences above, am I correct ?

Please correct me if I have made any mistake.

‘Please hand in your homework’ is what would be used in the UK. ‘Pass up’ would never be used.

‘Please move down the bus’ means move further inside it to let more people on. ‘Please go down…’ would not be used. Note that the meaning is not the same as ‘Please get off the bus’.

Regrarding the errors in your post:

May I know IF the words pass up in the sentence above are correctly used or is (the phrase) ‘hand in’ more suitable.

I have heard a lot of teachers USE ‘pass up’ in this way in my country. (change to present tense - because they still do!)

SHOULD ‘go down’ be replaced by ‘get off’. (‘Are’ is incorrect at the beginning of this sentence.)

Thanks Beeesneees ! You are nice. I am really appreciated it. I am curious why some people in my country use go down when they mean get off .

I am curious why some people in my country use go down when they mean get off .

Can anyone help/helps me change/changes the sentence above into more appropriate without changing the meaning ? Is the in phrase that on your reply indicate/indicates in hand ?

Please correct any mistake that I have made.

I don’t see why you need to change the sentence. It is appropriate as it is. The only thing I would change would be to add ‘as to’: I am curious as to why some people in my country use ‘go down’ when they mean ‘get off’.

‘Please hand in…’ equals ‘please give in/submit your homework’. It is not the same as the phrase ‘in hand’. If something is described as being ‘in hand’ it is being sorted out.

Sorry. I think it is a typo. I have intended to type hand in

I try to make my question clearer.

I want to know is it because “hand in” in the sentence above is considered as a phrase, so you used “is” instead of “are”.

The only time I have heard “pass up your work” was when I was in elementary school. The desks were arranged in columns and when the time for our work was complete, the teacher would say “please pass up your work”. This meant pass it to the person seated in front of you and so on. The homework would end up at the front row where the teacher would gather it. I know this is not the context in which the original poster was asking, just thought I would mention it.

Hi, Luschen. If in the situation that you have mentioned, is “pass up your work” is correctly used ?

Both are possible: Use ‘are’ if you are talking about the individual words which make up a phrase. Use ‘is’ if you are talking about the phrase as a whole.

I think it is correct for that situation. “Pass up your work by today” does not make sense though. “Pass up your work now” does.

Thanks for all the replies. They are helpful ^^ Thanks a lot.

Thesaurus for Pass up

Related terms for pass up - synonyms, antonyms and sentences with pass up, similar meaning.

• brush aside

Opposite meaning

• give the nod
• take advantage of
• be doing with
• give a blank cheque to
• give approval to
• give authority
• give authority for
• give authority to
• give consent to
• give one's assent to
• give one's blessing to
• give one's seal of approval to
• give permission for
• give power to
• give someone authorization
• give someone leave
• give someone permission

Common usage

• mark of omission

Sentence Examples

Proper usage in context.

• George, you can't pass up an invitation like that
• I can't afford to pass up that business
• I can't just pass up this opportunity
• I can't pass up a library book sale
• I can't pass up golden opportunities like this

• Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

hand in or pass up?

By Phychosis February 4, 2005 in TOEFL Grammar

• Reply to this topic
• Start new topic

Recommended Posts

the main purpose of doing homework is to pass up to the teacher

the main purpose of doing homework is to hand in to the teacher

which one to use... :tup:

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

the main purpose of doing homework is to pass up to the teacher or the main purpose of doing homework is to hand in to the teacher   which one to use..

I'd say hand in in this context.

I would use pass up in something like "I passed up the opportunity to go bungee jumping because I have a bad head for heights." It can also literally mean to pass something in an upwards direction.

I think it's best to choose the second on

Here in the first sentence to pass up means to let go by.

I don't know correct expalnation as to say why " the main purpose of doing homework is to hand in to the teacher".

Let us wait for explanation from admin

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.    Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.    Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.    Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

• Insert image from URL
• Submit Reply
• Existing user? Sign In
• Online Users
• Leaderboard
• All Activity
• Create New...

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of pass something up in English

Pass something up.

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• bat something/someone away
• oppositional
• punt on something
• sb wouldn't touch something/someone with a ten-foot pole idiom
• would not do something for all the tea in China idiom

pass up something | Intermediate English

Pass up something, pass sth up | business english, pass sth up, translations of pass something up.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

a bear with white fur that lives in the Arctic

Fakes and forgeries (Things that are not what they seem to be)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Phrasal verb
• Intermediate    Phrasal verb
• Business    Phrasal verb
• Translations
• All translations

To add pass something up to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add pass something up to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Get the Reddit app

Ask away! Disclaimer: This is an anonymous forum so answers may not be correct

“Pass” in vs. “Turn in” your homework

My girlfriend insists that everyone they knew growing up said the phrase “pass in your homework” instead of “turn in your homework”. Has anyone heard of this? Google didn’t turn up much of anything.

They grew up in New Hampshire, perhaps it’s a regional thing?

Please help, I have to know if I need to break up with them. Thanks!

Watch CBS News

Map shows states where fireworks are legal or illegal on July 4, 2024

By Emily Mae Czachor

Updated on: July 4, 2024 / 10:12 PM EDT / CBS News

Fireworks have become a staple of July Fourth celebrations across the United States, where towns and cities often host professional shows to mark the occasion each year. In some areas, smaller displays of less powerful fireworks pop up at private holiday parties. For people wondering where fireworks are legal —and where they're illegal— nationwide, here's what to know.

Full list of U.S. states where some fireworks are legal

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has banned several types of fireworks —like M-80s, cherry bombs and anything else that contains more than 50 milligrams of pyrotechnic material— at the federal level, but state and local regulations can be more complicated. To varying degrees, certain types of fireworks are legal in 49 states, plus Washington, D.C. 

Here's the full list:

• Connecticut
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Washington, D.C.
• West Virginia

The one U.S. state where all private fireworks are illegal

Massachusetts is the only state in the U.S. where it is illegal to sell, use or otherwise possess fireworks of any kind as a private citizen. Many communities across the state  host public fireworks displays at their July Fourth celebrations . But without a license and permit, the statewide law prohibits fireworks of all kinds, including sparklers, firecrackers and any other comparable device that's been designed to produce "a visible or audible effect," according to the state government .

The fireworks show in Marblehead, Mass. was canceled because the fireworks barge caught fire in the early morning hours Thursday. No one was aboard the barge at the time and there were no injuries, officials said. 

"There was a fire on the barge in the middle of the night," organizers said in a statement. "The fire marshal won't allow our vendor to perform any fireworks until determination of how the barge was able to catch fire."  

The ban has existed since 1943 , when state legislators amended an earlier set of statutes that previously allowed civilians to buy, sell and use certain kinds of fireworks for displays. When they enacted the fireworks ban, it was among an overhaul of measures enacted in response to World War II, some of which were billed as "emergency" orders meant specifically to remain effective as long as there was a potential enemy threat. But the the consumer fireworks law stayed in place after the war.

Despite periodic calls from within Massachusetts to lift the ban, officials say it continues to be necessary and have ramped up enforcement in recent years because illegal fireworks are prevalent. Between 2013 and 2022, Massachusetts fire departments reported almost 1,000 fires linked to illegal fireworks displays, in addition to 47 injuries — the majority to firefighters — and $2.5 million in damages, according to the state .

States where some fireworks are legal but many are restricted

Numerous states and Washington, D.C., restrict the sale, possession and use of consumer fireworks, even though professional fireworks displays are allowed with the appropriate licenses and permits. Those states are:

Illinois and Vermont have stricter laws than the rest of the U.S. In those states, only sparklers and "novelty" smoke devices are up for sale to the general public. A "novelty" device is one that contains "small amounts of pyrotechnic and/or explosive composition" but does not technically meet requirements to be considered a consumer firework, according to the  American Pyrotechnic Association .

In  Illinois , novelties include snakes, glow worm pellets, smoke devices, party poppers, snappers, trick matches, and "other devices in which paper or plastic caps containing twenty-five hundredths grains or less of explosive compound are used," per the state law banning most consumer fireworks.

The laws are similar in Vermont, where certain sparklers and novelty devices are allowed, provided that the sparklers contain 20 grams or less of pyrotechnic materials and the novelties contain 0.25 grains or less of explosive mixture, according to the  Office of the State Fire Marshal .

States that let counties determine fireworks laws

Hawaii, Nevada and Wyoming allow counties to determine whether fireworks are legal or not within their individual jurisdictions, as well as which kinds of fireworks are allowed and exactly when and where people can buy, sell and use them. 

In Hawaii, concerns over public safety prompted legislators in 2010 to pass a law that gave counties the authority to set stricter regulations for consumer fireworks than the ones established at the state level. It allowed, for instance, the City and County of Honolulu to broadly prohibit the sale, possession and use of all consumer fireworks except fire crackers — which can be obtained with a permit. But the ordinance doesn't apply to other counties.

Similar laws have been passed by state legislatures in Nevada  and Wyoming to give local officials control over fireworks in their areas. In those states, consumer fireworks may be legal in one county and banned in another, and some counties restrict buying, selling and using fireworks to specific times on designated days of the year.

Even when consumer fireworks are generally regulated by the state, people may find themselves in a town or city in Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Nevada or Ohio that has more stringent fireworks laws than its neighbors. And, in places like Illinois, setting off fireworks is only allowed in counties that have passed an ordinance to permit it, including on private property. 

What are non-aerial and non-explosive fireworks?

Most of the states where some but not all fireworks are legally accessible to civilians limit what's allowed to non-aerial and non-explosive fireworks only. Sometimes called "safe and sane" fireworks, these typically refer to devices that don't explode or fly. Because they contain lower amounts of combustible material than other fireworks, officials say they are also less likely to cause injuries or damage to property.

In wildfire-prone California, purchasing fireworks is illegal unless their packaging explicitly bears a "safe and sane" seal. A  fireworks education site operated by the California fire marshal's office lists sky rockets, bottle rockets, Roman candles, aerial shells and firecrackers as a few examples of fireworks that have been banned statewide in accordance with "safe and sane" standards, along with "other fireworks that explode, go into the air, or move on the ground in an uncontrollable manner." 

A growing number of California counties have outlawed fireworks altogether . Violators could faces fines and or jail time.

Why do some states ban certain fireworks?

Most states that place restrictions for civilians on the sale, possession and use of fireworks say the risks of injuries and property damages are their main reasons for doing so. In a number of those states, officials also cite the increased likelihood of wildfires sparking and potentially spreading in an area where fireworks have been set off. 

In California, as the weather remains hot and dry this week, fire officials are issuing warnings about the use of fireworks, which are illegal in several counties. At least two brush fires in the Bay Area may have been caused by illegal fireworks in the past few days. In San Francisco, all fireworks are illegal.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said it received reports of eight deaths and an estimated 9,700 injuries related to fireworks in 2023 alone. Of the eight deaths, five were associated with fireworks misuse, two with device malfunction and one was unknown.

How to report illegal fireworks

States and counties across the country encourage people to report any instances where they suspect illegal fireworks are involved, and many ask their residents to file those reports to their local fire departments or law enforcement agencies. People can also report illegal fireworks activity to a hotline at the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms , which is responsible for regulating all explosives, including fireworks.

Emily Mae Czachor is a reporter and news editor at CBSNews.com. She covers breaking news, often focusing on crime and extreme weather. Emily Mae has previously written for outlets including the Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed and Newsweek.

More from CBS News

Fireworks can scare dogs. Vets explain how to calm your pet's anxiety.

July 4th gas prices expected to hit lowest level in 3 years

9 best long-term CDs for July 2024 (up to 4.80% APY)

5 ways to get rid of credit card debt without a new loan

How to Use pass up in a Sentence

• I must pass up the offer to be chairman of this event.

Some of these examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'pass up.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The Supreme Court says cities can punish people for sleeping in public places

Jennifer Ludden

U.S. Supreme Court says cities can punish people for sleeping in public places

A homeless person walks near an elementary school in Grants Pass, Ore., on March 23. The rural city became the unlikely face of the nation's homelessness crisis when it asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold its anti-camping laws. Jenny Kane/AP hide caption

In its biggest decision on homelessness in decades, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that cities can ban people from sleeping and camping in public places. The justices, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, overturned lower court rulings that deemed it cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to punish people for sleeping outside if they had nowhere else to go.

Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch said, “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many.” But he said federal judges do not have any “special competence” to decide how cities should deal with this.

“The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy,” he wrote.

In a dissent, Justice Sotomayor said the decision focused only on the needs of cities but not the most vulnerable. She said sleep is a biological necessity, but this decision leaves a homeless person with “an impossible choice — either stay awake or be arrested.”

The court's decision is a win not only for the small Oregon city of Grants Pass, which brought the case, but also for dozens of Western localities that had urged the high court to grant them more enforcement powers as they grapple with record high rates of homelessness. They said the lower court rulings had tied their hands in trying to keep public spaces open and safe for everyone.

Supreme Court appears to side with an Oregon city's crackdown on homelessness

But advocates for the unhoused say the decision won’t solve the bigger problem, and could make life much harder for the quarter of a million people living on streets, in parks and in their cars. “Where do people experiencing homelessness go if every community decides to punish them for their homelessness?” says Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Today’s ruling only changes current law in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes California and eight other Western states where the bulk of America’s unhoused population lives. But it will also determine whether similar policies elsewhere are permissible; and it will almost certainly influence homelessness policy in cities around the country.

Cities complained they were hamstrung in managing a public safety crisis

Grants Pass and other cities argued that lower court rulings fueled the spread of homeless encampments, endangering public health and safety. Those decisions did allow cities to restrict when and where people could sleep and even to shut down encampments – but they said cities first had to offer people adequate shelter.

That’s a challenge in many places that don’t have nearly enough shelter beds. In briefs filed by local officials, cities and town also expressed frustration that many unhoused people reject shelter when it is available; they may not want to go if a facility bans pets, for example, or prohibits drugs and alcohol.

Critics also said lower court rulings were ambiguous, making them unworkable in practice. Localities have faced dozens of lawsuits over the details of what’s allowed. And they argued that homelessness is a complex problem that requires balancing competing interests, something local officials are better equipped to do than the courts.

"We are trying to show there's respect for the public areas that we all need to have," Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison told NPR earlier this year. She wrote a legal brief on behalf of more than a dozen other cities. "We care for people, and we're engaging and being involved in the long-term solution for them."

The decision will not solve the larger problem of rising homelessness

Attorneys for homeless people in Grants Pass argued that the city’s regulations were so sweeping, they effectively made it illegal for someone without a home to exist. To discourage sleeping in public spaces, the city banned the use of stoves and sleeping bags, pillows or other bedding. But Grants Pass has no public shelter, only a Christian mission that imposes various restrictions and requires people to attend religious service.

"It's sort of the bare minimum in what a just society should expect, is that you're not going to punish someone for something they have no ability to control," said Ed Johnson of the Oregon Law Center, which represents those who sued the city.

He also said saddling people with fines and a criminal record makes it even harder for them to eventually get into housing.

Johnson and other advocates say today’s decision won’t change the core problem behind rising homelessness: a severe housing shortage, and rents that have become unaffordable for a record half of all tenants. The only real solution, they say, is to create lots more housing people can afford – and that will take years.

• homelessness
• Supreme Court

In historic ruling on presidential immunity, Supreme Court says Trump can be tried for private acts

WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President 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.”

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent," she wrote.

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 a 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 has  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.

Roberts said presidents are not above the law.

“But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts,” he wrote. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”

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 also has 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.

'Deeply disturbing'

David Becker, a former senior trial attorney in the voting section of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, called the high court's decision “deeply disturbing” and “really striking” for what it would allow a president to do in office and remain unchallenged criminally.

Presidents, he said, would have immunity from interactions with an attorney general, even if that means pressuring him to change election results or ordering SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent.

“The way I read this opinion is it could be a road map for (presidents) seeking to stay in power,” Becker said. “It could put into question whether or not future peaceful transfers of power occur.”

Robert Mintz, an expert on white collar criminal defense at McCarter & English, said the decision created more heat than light.

“Rather than finding either clear immunity or no immunity for alleged criminal conduct, this new standard will unquestionably lead to protracted hearings and further appeals as the lower courts have to now grapple with the question of which allegations in the indictment constitute official acts,” Mintz said.

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 2½ 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.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump's lawyer to concede that the private acts of presidents aren't protected from prosecution − and that some of the alleged conduct included in the indictment is private.

For example, Barrett asked whether directing lawyers to submit fraudulent slates of electors to obstruct the certification of the election − if proven − would be official or private.

“That’s private,” Sauer said.

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, Martha-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  that the 2020 election was stolen and attended Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, 2021.

Thomas, in an opinion agreeing with Roberts, seemed to question whether Smith is a legitimate prosecutor for the case.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

The case is Trump v. United States.

Morning Rundown: U.K.’s new leader meets with King Charles, Disney heiress issues Biden ultimatum, and 'extremely dangerous' heatwave set to break records

Supreme Court gives win to Trump, ruling he has immunity for some acts in election interference indictment

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday raised the bar for prosecuting Donald Trump, ruling that he has immunity for some of his conduct as president in his federal election interference case but maybe not for other actions, adding another obstacle for special counsel Jack Smith’s taking the case to trial .

In a novel and potentially consequential case about the limits of presidential power, the justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to reject Trump’s broad claim of immunity, meaning the charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results will not be dismissed, but they said some actions closely related to his core duties as president are off-limits to prosecutors.

"Big win for our Constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American," Trump said in a post in all capital letters on his social media website, Truth Social.

Trump's Republican allies welcomed the ruling, while Democrats roundly condemned it. In televised remarks from the White House on Monday night, President Joe Biden called the decision "a terrible disservice to the people of this nation."

"No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. [With] today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed for all practical purposes,” Biden said.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said further proceedings are needed in lower courts to determine what conduct Trump can be prosecuted for. Among the conduct that the court determined to be core presidential powers and therefore subject to immunity are Trump's contacts with Justice Department officials. Trump is also "presumptively immune" from being prosecuted for his contacts with Vice President Mike Pence in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by his supporters, Roberts wrote.

The indictment alleged that Trump sought to pressure the Justice Department to investigate unfounded claims of widespread election fraud as part of a plan to keep him in power despite Biden's election victory. Trump also wanted Pence to refuse to certify the election results as part of his ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6.

"The President is not above the law," Roberts wrote. "But Congress may not criminalize the President's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution."

What that means for the case going forward remains to be seen. Trump’s lawyer conceded in the oral argument in April that at least some of the allegations in the indictment concern private conduct that would not be protected by any immunity defense. Likewise, the Justice Department lawyer arguing the case for the special counsel said the prosecution could go ahead even if some official acts were protected.

Smith's office declined to comment on the ruling Monday.

At a minimum, there will be further proceedings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine what, if any, of the other conduct alleged in the indictment is protected. Among the acts she will review to determine whether they are subject to immunity are Trump's contacts with people outside the federal government, including state election officials such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whom Trump pressured to reject results showing Biden victories.

Prosecutors will also have a chance to rebut the suggestion that Trump's contacts with Pence are protected. That determination would hinge on whether prosecuting Trump for those actions would "pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch," Roberts wrote.

In addressing the contacts with state election officials, Roberts wrote that the president has "broad power to speak on matters of public concern," including the conduct of elections. On the other hand, the president "plays no role" in the certifying of elections by states, he added. Chutkan needs to conduct a "close analysis" of the indictment to determine whether Trump's actions are protected, Roberts said.

In another blow to Smith, the court ruled that none of the conduct for which Trump is immune can be admitted as evidence at trial in any form.

The court's three liberal justices strenuously dissented , with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that the ruling "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

The Constitution, she added, "does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts."

She warned that the ruling could have broad ramifications by protecting presidents for a wide variety of actions.

"Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends," Sotomayor wrote. "Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today."

In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the ruling as a "five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance."

Even if the new proceedings do not take much time, there is little chance for the trial to conclude before Election Day. It had previously been suggested that a trial would not start until at least three months after the Supreme Court ruling, which would mean it would potentially not start until early October at the earliest. The trial itself could last up to 12 weeks.

The case put the national spotlight on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three justices Trump appointed. The court handed Trump an election-year boost when it ruled in March that Colorado could not kick him off the ballot .

The justices were also criticized for their delay in taking up Trump’s appeal, which some view in itself as a victory for him, as it meant the trial could not take place in March as originally planned.

Legally speaking, the case was unprecedented, as no president has ever been prosecuted after having left office. Therefore, the court was wrestling with a legal question that had never come before it: whether a president has some form of immunity for his core duties derived from the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which delineates the powers of the presidency in relation to other branches of government.

The legal argument focused on Trump’s official acts, with both sides agreeing that a former president does not have immunity for personal conduct.

The Supreme Court intervened after a federal appeals court had ruled Feb. 6 that Trump was not immune from prosecution, saying that once he left office he became “citizen Trump” and should be treated like any other criminal defendant. The Justice Department has long maintained that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.

The appeals court did not analyze which, if any, of the conduct in the indictment could be viewed as an official act, a fact that appeared to irk some of the justices during oral argument.

Trump’s lawyers pointed to a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that endorsed presidential immunity from civil lawsuits when the underlying conduct concerns actions within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities.

Smith’s team argued that there is no broad immunity that prevents former presidents from being prosecuted for criminal acts committed in office.

The federal indictment returned by a grand jury in Washington in August consisted of four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights, specifically the right to vote.

In another Jan. 6-related case, the court on Friday narrowed the scope of law penalizing the obstruction of an official proceeding. Trump also faces that charge, but legal experts say the Friday ruling may not affect his case .

Trump, the indictment said, conspired to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the government function by which those results are collected, counted and certified.”

The indictment focuses on Trump’s involvement in a scheme to submit fake election certificates to Congress in the hope that they would nullify Biden’s victory. The chain of events culminated in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Trump, who pleaded not guilty, says he was simply expressing his concerns, which were not based on any evidence, that the election was marred by widespread fraud. The case is one of four criminal prosecutions Trump is currently battling.

Lawrence Hurley covers the Supreme Court for NBC News.