Barrett, Sotomayor unite on criminal evidence portion of Trump immunity decision

• "A president facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment," she wrote. "If that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial."
• Using the hypothetical of a bribery charge, Barrett said courts already have sufficient procedures for handling official actions that may still indicate criminal activity.

Catch up quick: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that presidents have immunity for "official acts" but didn't conclude whether Trump's alleged Jan. 6 conduct was protected.

• A lower court would now be responsible for determining his immunity for those actions.

The latest: Trump could stand trial if his alleged criminal acts to overturn the 2020 election are proven to be separate from his official acts, Barrett wrote.

• Barrett explicitly endorsed portions of the dissent written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor also challenging the majority decision's holding that bars introducing official acts as evidence of a crime.
• "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable," Barrett wrote.

The intrigue: Trump nominated Barrett to the court in 2020 to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

• Her appointment gave conservatives a 6-3 majority on the high court.

State of play: Barrett agreed with the dissenting opinion's view of evidence, but sided with the remainder of the majority opinion.

• "If the evidence comes in, the trial court can instruct the jury to consider it only for lawful purposes," Barrett wrote, adding, "I see no need to depart from that familiar and time-tested procedure here."

Context: Unofficial acts remain open to prosecution, but the majority's "draconian approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth," Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

Go deeper: READ: Supreme Court issues ruling on Trump immunity