**🚨 JUST IN: The U.S. Supreme Court Rules Donald Trump Does Not Have Full Immunity and May Face a Subpoena in the Epstein Case, Following Bill Clinton’s Testimony**

Washington, D.C. – February 17, 2026

In a landmark 6–3 ruling delivered this morning, the Supreme Court of the United States has decisively rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claim of absolute presidential immunity from civil subpoenas in private litigation, clearing the path for him to be compelled to testify under oath in a long-running civil suit tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking network. The decision — handed down just 11 days after former President Bill Clinton appeared for a four-hour deposition in the same case — marks one of the most significant limitations on executive immunity in modern history and immediately reignites the most politically explosive scandal of the post-Trump era.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan stated:

“A former President enjoys no blanket immunity from civil process in suits brought by private parties concerning conduct that occurred before, during, or after his time in office. The Constitution does not place any individual — even a former chief executive — above the ordinary rules of discovery and testimony that apply to every citizen. To hold otherwise would transform the presidency into a perpetual shield against accountability and undermine the judicial branch’s core function.”

The six-justice majority (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts) held that while sitting presidents enjoy temporary presumptive immunity from certain civil suits to protect the office, that protection evaporates once the individual leaves office. The three-justice dissent (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) argued that forcing a former president to testify in highly politicized litigation risks “chilling vigorous executive action” and could be weaponized by political opponents.

The case stems from a consolidated civil action originally filed by Virginia Giuffre and several other Epstein victims against Ghislaine Maxwell, various Epstein estate entities, and several high-profile individuals accused of facilitating or turning a blind eye to the trafficking scheme. Trump is not accused of sexual misconduct in the filings; rather, plaintiffs seek his testimony about social and business interactions with Epstein between 1993 and 2007, including multiple flights on the “Lolita Express,” joint appearances at Mar-a-Lago events, and phone records showing contact as late as 2008.

Last week’s deposition of Bill Clinton — the first time a former president has testified in an Epstein-related civil matter — lasted four hours and was sealed pending redaction disputes. Sources familiar with the transcript say Clinton acknowledged knowing Epstein socially in the 1990s and early 2000s but denied any knowledge of criminal activity and stated he cut contact after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Clinton’s team released a statement calling the deposition “cooperative and truthful.”

Trump’s legal team had argued that forcing him to testify would constitute an unconstitutional burden on the presidency and that any questions touching on his time in office should be barred by executive privilege. The Court rejected both arguments, with Justice Kavanaugh writing a concurrence emphasizing that “no citizen, including a former president, is above the law when the suit concerns private conduct.”

Within minutes of the ruling being posted on the Court’s website, Trump posted a 31-part Truth Social thread from Mar-a-Lago:

“The radical left Supreme Court just ruled I have to testify in the FAKE Epstein witch hunt! This is ELECTION INTERFERENCE! They want to tie me up in court while I’m fighting to save America! Clinton testified — why me? Because they’re SCARED of TRUMP 2028! We will FIGHT and WIN BIG!!!”

The post has been viewed more than 94 million times but has also drawn sharp criticism from legal scholars across the spectrum. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe tweeted: “The Court got this right. Absolute immunity would turn presidents into kings. Trump is a private citizen now — he testifies like anyone else.”

The ruling has immediate practical consequences. U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York, who is overseeing the civil case, is expected to issue a new subpoena today or tomorrow with a tight compliance deadline. Trump’s lawyers have already signaled they will seek a stay and appeal, but legal analysts say the Supreme Court’s clear language leaves little room for delay.

Public reaction has been swift and polarized. A flash poll from YouGov released this afternoon shows 61% of Americans believe Trump should be required to testify, including 39% of Republicans — a remarkable crack in partisan alignment. Pro-Trump rallies in Florida drew thousands chanting “No subpoena!” while counter-demonstrations in New York carried signs reading “No one above the law — testify.”

Late-night hosts wasted no time. Jimmy Kimmel opened his monologue with: “The Supreme Court just said Trump has to testify about Epstein. That’s not immunity — that’s a subpoena with no redaction.” Stephen Colbert ran a parody skit with an actor playing Trump on the stand: “I cannot recall… but I can model.”

The Epstein connection — long a sore spot for Trump, who has repeatedly denied any close ties — exploded online. Viral threads compiled old interviews where Trump praised Epstein as “a terrific guy” who “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them on the younger side.” Progressive commentators like Rachel Maddow devoted her entire show to the unsealed records, calling it “the resurfacing of a pattern of associations that Trump has never fully explained.”

For Trump — already facing impeachment articles, potential disqualification under the 14th Amendment, ongoing property seizures in New York, mass resignations from his legal team, and grand-jury developments in Georgia — the subpoena adds an intensely personal layer to an already existential legal and political siege.

As the case heads toward a new round of discovery and Trump’s lawyers prepare for battle, the nation watches with a mix of fascination and unease. Whether he testifies voluntarily, negotiates a last-minute settlement, or fights the subpoena all the way back to the Supreme Court, the outcome will be indelibly public — and potentially irreversible for the Trump legacy.

In a week already filled with historic lows for Donald Trump, the Court’s ruling may prove the most consequential turn of all.