Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall expressed approval of the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Trump v. United States, which overturned the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that former President Donald Trump has no immunity from criminal prosecution. The majority opinion stated that "our constitutional structure of separated powers" grants a former President certain absolute and presumptive immunities from criminal prosecution for official acts conducted during their presidency.
Attorney General Marshall commented on the ruling, saying, "The Supreme Court recognized that until now our Nation has never before needed an answer’ for when a former President could face prosecution. If Biden were confident that he could win an election without his Justice Department prosecuting his political opponent, we would not have needed one today. But the Supreme Court correctly threw a wrench in this sordid scheme."
Marshall also highlighted Alabama's contributions to the case, noting, "I am proud of our critical briefs which advocated for the protection of the Constitution and the office of the presidency. I hope that the district court will get the message and dismiss this abusive prosecution." He further expressed his intentions to collaborate with a potentially re-elected President Trump to address what he described as current administrative failures.
In March, Attorney General Marshall spearheaded an 18-state brief supporting Trump's immunity case before the Supreme Court. The brief argued that presidential immunity is essential to prevent partisan prosecutions—a concern shared by America's Founders. It suggested that the Department of Justice’s timing in prosecuting Trump was driven by improper motives, particularly after Trump announced his campaign and following President Biden's remarks about preventing Trump's return to power.
The amicus brief referenced other ongoing prosecutions against Trump across various states as further evidence of potential partisan misuse of the justice system.
Earlier this year, Marshall defended the Supreme Court in a Newsweek op-ed against accusations of political bias in its certiorari review process. In February, he led 22 states in urging the Supreme Court to follow its standard timeline for reviewing cases rather than succumb to politically charged urgency. Additionally, in December, he successfully opposed a multi-state brief challenging Special Counsel requests intended to expedite trial proceedings ahead of elections.