In a recent development, legal analysts have suggested that Democrats may succeed in their efforts to limit former President Donald Trump's immunity, despite his recent Supreme Court victory. Concerns have been raised that if Trump were to be elected president again in November, he would act without repercussions. In response, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on Monday that Senate Democrats would work on a bill aimed at curbing presidential immunity.

While some legal commentators have expressed skepticism, arguing that Democrats cannot override Supreme Court decisions, New York University law professor Stephen Gillers offered a different perspective. Gillers pointed out that the president's powers derive not only from the Constitution but also from statutory authority, which means that Congress could potentially draft laws that restrict Trump's authority.

Gillers explained, "The Supreme Court's ruling stated that the president has absolute immunity when his power stems from the Constitution. Legislation cannot override that. However, the president also derives power from statutes. Congress may be able to draft laws that limit the president's presumptive immunity when exercising non-constitutional powers that depend solely on statutory authority."

Nonetheless, Gillers acknowledged the challenging task of drafting an act that would withstand a potential court challenge from Trump. He suggested that one strategy could involve incorporating negative language in the legislation, explicitly stating what the president is prohibited from doing when utilizing specific powers granted by the legislation.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling, with a 6-3 decision, established that presidents enjoy broad immunity for official acts. Additionally, it stated that official acts cannot be used as evidence in cases brought against a president for unofficial acts.

The legal proceedings against Trump, who faces four counts of allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election leading up to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, have been placed on hold while the Supreme Court deliberated on the issue of presidential immunity. Trump has pleaded not guilty, denouncing the case as a political witch hunt.

Newsweek reached out for comment from Trump's attorney regarding the Democrats' efforts to limit presidential immunity but received no response as of Thursday.

Schumer criticized the Supreme Court's ruling on the Senate floor, asserting that they had made a mistake. He argued, "They incorrectly declared that former President Trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took while in office. They incorrectly declared that all future presidents are entitled to a breathtaking level of immunity, as long as their conduct is ostensibly carried out in their official capacity as president."

As Democrats undertake the task of drafting a bill to designate Trump's alleged attempts to undermine the 2020 election as "unofficial acts" and excluding them from Supreme Court protection, the implications of this effort remain uncertain.