BREAKING: Donald Trump has just suffered what may be the most devastating legal defeat of his political career.

Donald Trump has just suffered what may be the most devastating legal defeat of his political career.

In a 7–2 ruling, the Supreme Court flatly rejected Trump’s claim of presidential immunity — and most strikingly, justices he personally appointed voted against him.

This decision shatters the legal strategy Trump has relied on for years. Since 2023, his defense rested on one central argument: that a president cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while in office. The Court has now made its position unmistakably clear — no one is above the law.

Then came an unexpected development. Warren Buffett, long silent on Trump, issued a rare public statement warning that attacks on the rule of law threaten both democracy and the economy. Markets reacted immediately, signaling just how seriously this moment is being taken.

Trump now faces a harsh reality. Without immunity, his federal trials move forward, and the risk of conviction is real. Attacking the Court only deepens his isolation. Accepting the ruling means admitting he is subject to the same laws as every other citizen.

And the detail that worried Trump’s adviser the most was a supplementary statement included in the ruling — one that was not read aloud on live television.

The Supreme Court has spoken—and this time, there’s no appeal left. Trump’s final legal lifeline has been cut.
Read the full breakdown and see what this means for Trump’s future.

In a sharply watched move, the **U.S. Supreme Court has declined to grant former President Donald Trump’s latest appeal**, delivering a significant setback to his legal strategy in a high-profile case, legal experts say.

The Court’s action, issued in the form of a brief unsigned order, *refused to intervene* in Trump’s request to pause or stay ongoing judicial proceedings — effectively leaving intact lower-court rulings that Trump had sought to overturn. This marks one of several recent instances in which the nation’s highest court has rebuffed emergency appeals from the Trump administration or its allies.

Legal analysts say the decision is important not only for the specific case at hand but also because it underscores the limits of Supreme Court intervention in fast-moving legal disputes involving a sitting or former president. By rejecting the application, the justices allowed the underlying judicial process to proceed in the lower courts without the high court’s interference

Trump’s legal team had argued that an immediate stay was required to prevent what they described as *irreparable harm* while appeals continue — an argument the Supreme Court did not adopt in its order. In past similar appeals this year, the Court has split sharply along ideological lines, with conservative and liberal justices differing on when and how to step in on urgent requests from the executive branch.

Trump reacted to the news through his public communications channels, asserting that the decision reflects *continuing hostility in the courts toward his efforts* and vowing to pursue *all available legal avenues*. Supporters have echoed calls for further appeals in the federal system.

Critics of the administration, including civil liberties advocates, said the ruling reinforces the independence of the judiciary and the principle that even powerful political figures must clear established legal hurdles in the federal courts.

As of now, the lower-court proceedings that Trump hoped to forestall will continue without delay, and legal observers expect further filings in the weeks ahead as both sides prepare for the next stages in the long-running litigation.