The recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding Donald Trump's presidential immunity creates a significant legal precedent. For the first time in American history, the Supreme Court defined the limits of immunity for former presidents, stating that the immunity would be "partial". This means that the former president has full immunity for actions he performed in his official capacity, but he does not have immunity for actions he performed in a private setting. 

The decision was made by a majority of six conservative judges against three liberal judges. 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that under the constitutional structure of the United States, a former president needs some immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions. However, Roberts added, lower courts will have to determine whether or not Trump's actions in the Capitol riots were within the scope of his official duties.

Judge Clarence Thomas expressed doubt about the legitimacy of the continuation of the work of the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, and noted that if the prosecution continues, it must be ensured that it is conducted by a person authorized by the citizens. Justice Amy Cooney Barrett, who joined the majority opinion, wrote a separate opinion, in which she explained that the former president can challenge the legality of the charges against him, but if his appeal is rejected, he must stand trial.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was one of the judges who opposed the ruling, wrote that the decision dramatically expands the powers of the president. She warned that the ruling effectively creates a lawless zone around the president, which endangers the principles of American democracy.

This ruling is not only a legal decision, but also a significant political move. On the one hand, she emphasizes that no one is above the law, including former presidents. On the other hand, it grants sitting and former presidents immunity from lawsuits for official actions, which may allow them to act more freely within their duties.

The immediate effect of the ruling is to delay the legal proceedings against Trump until after the presidential election in November. This gives him a significant political advantage, as he will be able to continue his campaign without significant interference from the judiciary. The narrative of Trump as a prosecutor of justice persecuted by the system may be strengthened among his supporters.

The public debate in America regarding the power of the president and the limits on his powers will be at the center of attention following this ruling. The decision reminds Americans of the importance of the balance of power between the authorities, but also emphasizes the need to protect presidents from political lawsuits.

The new ruling also casts doubt on other cases in which Trump is involved, such as the case of the classified documents and the case of the attempt to bias the election results in the state of Georgia. Each case will now be examined according to the new established criteria, whether the actions carried out by Trump within the framework of these cases are considered official actions in his role as president or private actions.

In the end, the ruling gives Trump a partial victory. The consequences of the ruling will become clear in the near future, especially when the other cases involving Trump, such as the classified documents case and the case of the attempt to bias the election results in the state of Georgia, will be examined according to the new established criteria. The upcoming elections will test not only Trump's leadership, but also the impact of the ruling on American politics. 

Dr. Kobi Barda is an expert in American political history and international relations, and a senior researcher at the Haifa Incubator for the Study of Religions of the University of Haifa and the owner of the "America Baby" thesis.