A recent ruling by Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos has asserted that former President Donald Trump was protected by presidential immunity when he made false claims about the 2020 election.

This ruling effectively shields Trump from the legal consequences of his statements while in office.

Judge Erdos’ decision is centered on presidential immunity, emphasizing that while other legal proceedings may investigate the propriety of Trump’s statements and actions during his presidency, the specific lawsuit was not the appropriate venue for such an examination.

The judge stated, “Other legal proceedings may examine the propriety of his statements and actions while he was President and whether, as the plaintiffs in this and other cases contend, it was this conduct which served as the actual threat to our democracy. This case is not the proper place to do so. Here, Trump is entitled to presidential immunity.”

The lawsuit had been filed by James Savage, a Pennsylvania voting machine supervisor who played a significant role in the 2020 election.

Savage had filed two lawsuits against Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and two poll watchers, alleging defamation and harm caused by Trump’s statements.

Judge Erdos acknowledged that Trump’s remarks, made at Gettysburg and on social media, were public statements.

He also emphasized that the subject matter of these statements—claims of election irregularities propagated by third parties, including the President himself—was of significant public interest and concern.

Alina Habba, Trump’s legal spokesperson, responded to the court’s decision, expressing satisfaction with the ruling and highlighting the importance of preserving presidential immunity.

Habba argued that the decision affirms the President’s discretion to address concerns about election integrity without legal liability.

However, legal experts note that the ruling pertains solely to civil liability for actions taken by Trump as part of his official duties and does not establish immunity from criminal charges. Furthermore, the ruling is not binding on courts in other states.

The ruling has sparked varied reactions on social media, with some expressing concern about its implications for accountability, while others view it as a legally sound decision.

One commenter said: “Trump and Habba just opened up a huge Pandora’s Box of tricks that will bring many regrets in the future. This means that the POTUS can lie 24/7 and not be held responsible nor lawfully accountable for the lies.”

Another person commented about Erdos, “This judge is a co-conspirator and should be tried for treason. There’s a mountain of evidence proving the ruling to be false. We all watched it happen. The January 6th committee showed he’s absolutely guilty. We’re all equal under the law. America doesn’t have kings raining with impunity. What a disgrace!”