The United States Supreme Court grapples with the unprecedented issue of a former president’s claim to immunity, the potential consequences for Donald Trump’s looming federal trial and future presidential accountability have taken center stage. During a recent series of arguments, at least five conservative justices suggested that they would create a new rule providing some form of immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents.
At the crux of this judicial debate is Trump’s assertion of “absolute immunity” for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, During Thursday’s arguments, five of the six conservative justices appeared more concerned about hypothetical restraints on future presidents that could flow from hypothetical future prosecutions rather than the actual case at hand. Nor did they appear to consider the hypothetical crimes future presidents could commit if granted “absolute immunity.” And though a majority of the court did appear to reject Trump’s full claim of “absolute immunity,” this suggested a desire to craft a ruling that would grant some form of immunity to presidents in some cases, and then remanding Trump’s case back to the lower courts for more hearings.
Alito, alongside fellow conservatives such as Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appears more focused on the implications for future presidencies than the present circumstances surrounding Trump.
D. John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, agreed that Trump’s actions in organizing the fake electors scheme ― in which Republican officials in six states submitted fake slates of electors to Congress in a scheme to overturn the election ― and acts involving private campaign officials or private lawyers did not constitute official acts, although Sauer disagreed about the facts surrounding them.
Conversely, the court’s liberal wing, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan, expressed concerns about the consequences of conferring broad immunity.
The possibility of remanding the case to lower courts for further proceedings emerged as a likely outcome, which would inevitably delay the trial, perhaps beyond the 2024 presidential election—an indirect boon for Trump.
The liberal justices, led by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, cast skepticism on these expansive claims, emphasizing the need to hold presidents accountable to prevent the Oval Office from becoming a seat of unchecked criminal activity. Despite this, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, appeared opposed to further delay tactics. “It is another option for special counsel to proceed on ‘unofficial conduct’ based on the private conduct and drop the ‘official conduct,” Barrett said.
Relevant articles:
– Supreme Court Conservatives Likely To Give Trump What He Wants In Immunity Case: Further Delay, HuffPost, 04/26/2024
– Supreme Court Suggests They’ll Further Delay Trump’s Election Trial As They Wrestle With Whether He Has ‘Immunity’, Forbes, Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:13:00 GMT
– Supreme Court signals further delay in Trump election interference case as it weighs immunity claims, NBC News, Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:13:15 GMT
– Possible delay and crime incentives: key takeaways from T
The United States Supreme Court grapples with the unprecedented issue of a former president’s claim to immunity, the potential consequences for Donald Trump’s looming federal trial and future presidential accountability have taken center stage. During a recent series of arguments, at least five conservative justices suggested that they would create a new rule providing some form of immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents.
At the crux of this judicial debate is Trump’s assertion of “absolute immunity” for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, During Thursday’s arguments, five of the six conservative justices appeared more concerned about hypothetical restraints on future presidents that could flow from hypothetical future prosecutions rather than the actual case at hand. Nor did they appear to consider the hypothetical crimes future presidents could commit if granted “absolute immunity.” And though a majority of the court did appear to reject Trump’s full claim of “absolute immunity,” this suggested a desire to craft a ruling that would grant some form of immunity to presidents in some cases, and then remanding Trump’s case back to the lower courts for more hearings.
Alito, alongside fellow conservatives such as Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appears more focused on the implications for future presidencies than the present circumstances surrounding Trump.
D. John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, agreed that Trump’s actions in organizing the fake electors scheme ― in which Republican officials in six states submitted fake slates of electors to Congress in a scheme to overturn the election ― and acts involving private campaign officials or private lawyers did not constitute official acts, although Sauer disagreed about the facts surrounding them.
Conversely, the court’s liberal wing, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan, expressed concerns about the consequences of conferring broad immunity.
The possibility of remanding the case to lower courts for further proceedings emerged as a likely outcome, which would inevitably delay the trial, perhaps beyond the 2024 presidential election—an indirect boon for Trump.
The liberal justices, led by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, cast skepticism on these expansive claims, emphasizing the need to hold presidents accountable to prevent the Oval Office from becoming a seat of unchecked criminal activity. Despite this, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, appeared opposed to further delay tactics. “It is another option for special counsel to proceed on ‘unofficial conduct’ based on the private conduct and drop the ‘official conduct,” Barrett said.
rump immunity case, The Guardian US, Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:19:00 GMT