WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday over whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The core issue before the Court is whether a former president can claim absolute immunity for acts taken while in office. Trump’s defense, as articulated by his attorney John Sauer, asserts that such immunity is critical to protect the office from politically motivated prosecutions and to ensure that the president can fulfill their role without fear of legal repercussions. Sauer warns that without this immunity, the presidency “as we know it” would be fundamentally altered. He conjures the image of future prosecutions, even suggesting that current President Joe Biden could be targeted for his immigration policies.
Michael Dreeben, a lawyer from Smith’s office, represented the United States. He emphasized that the Supreme Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. Trump, he contended, seeks permanent criminal immunity for a president’s official acts unless he has first been impeached and convicted by the Senate.
The justices’ probing of Sauer included hypotheticals that tested the boundaries between official and private acts. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan challenged Sauer with scenarios of a president accepting a bribe in exchange for an official act or commanding a military coup.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson referenced the Nixon pardon to question the historical understanding of presidential vulnerability to prosecution. Justice Gorsuch also noted the importance of any action taken by the Court in the immunity case. “We’re writing a rule for the ages,” he told Justice Department Counselor Michael Dreeben. Justice Brett Kavanaugh made similar comments: “This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch observed that, with the concession that a former president could be prosecuted for his private conduct, the two sides had found “some common ground.” He noted that the D.C. Circuit had “expressed some views about how to” separate private and official conduct, including the possibility of further proceedings to do so.
Chief Justice John Roberts also questioned the appeals court decision presented to the Court. “The Court of Appeals below, whose decision we are reviewing, said a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of the laws,” said Roberts, who told Dreeben he was concerned about the court’s logic.
The Court now faces a question of timing with its decision, since absent a clear-cut quick ruling on the immunity question, the case could head back to the lower courts for reconsideration or for trial. If the decision comes in late June, experts do not expect the proceedings to conclude before the presidential election. Justice Samuel Alito said that “whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents.”
Relevant articles:
– Supreme Court appears likely to side with Trump on some presidential immunity, scotusblog.com, 04/28/2024
– What to listen for during Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump and presidential immunity, ABC News, Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:03:46 GMT
– Supreme Court tackles history with Trump’s immunity case, National Constitution Center, Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:24:24 GMT
– How Justice Amy Coney Barrett drove the Supreme Court’s debate on abortion and Trump immunity, CNN, Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:00:00 GMT
– Supreme Court seems skeptical of Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, The Associated Press, Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:52:00 GMT