Three experts from Yale Law School spoke to this newspaper about former President Donald Trump's Supreme Court case regarding presidential immunity, which is scheduled for oral arguments at the end of April.
adam walker
staff reporter
amy chen
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges related to his alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results.
Oral arguments in the Trump v. United States case are scheduled for April 25th. At issue in the case is the extent to which former presidents retain presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts.” Actions taken in the capacity of president while in office. It will also clarify the circumstances under which a former president may be tried in court. Linda Greenhouse Law '78, a former Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, said Trump's lawyers are advocating a very broad understanding of what constitutes official conduct.
“The question before the court is whether a former president is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of official conduct,” Greenhouse told the News. “In each particular case, it will be clear at trial whether the acts he is accused of amounting to official acts…But clearly, killing someone and claiming it was an official act… Some of the more outlandish concepts are off the table, such as.”
In August 2023, Trump was first indicted on four charges stemming from Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the events of January 6, 2021. On that day, a mob of Trump supporters turned violent. A storm has come They invaded the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. As a result of the riot, large number of casualtiessimilarly serious damage To the National Diet Building.
Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia originally scheduled a trial on President Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election for March 4, 2024. However, she later withdrew that trial date and said she would set a new one. The day President Trump's immunity claim was resolved. Chutkan had rejected Trump's motion to dismiss his charges against her, arguing that she could face civil action. In December 2023, Mr. Smith bypassed the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and petitioned the Supreme Court to immediately reconsider Mr. Chutkan's decision. However, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Smith's request.
Two months later, on February 6, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously supported Mr. Chutkan's first ruling rejected Mr. Trump's argument that he was immune from prosecution for actions he took while president. Trump's lawyers then appealed again to the Supreme Court. On February 28, the court agreed to hear the case.
“This case is unprecedented, and Mr. Trump’s legal arguments are bold and unpersuasive,” appellate attorney and author Duncan Hosey LAW ’21 told the News. “However, despite the novelty of this case and Trump’s brazen assertions, the Supreme Court and the parties have been unable to resolve past cases involving presidential immunity, including 1982’s Nixon v. Fitzgerald and 2020’s Trump v. Vance. “The courts will not be governing from a completely blank slate, as they always are.”
According to David Lat LAW '99: Legal Commentary Substack Newsletter Author original jurisdictionthere have been a handful of Supreme Court cases on the topic of presidential immunity; Two of the cases involved President Richard Nixon, one involved President Bill Clinton, and one involved President Trump. But Lat said the issue of immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents is new to the court.
Lat also told the News that it remains unclear why the court decided to take up the case at this time. However, he suggested several possible reasons for the court's decision.
“Perhaps they wanted to give the first crack at the D.C. circuit. Perhaps they wanted to get Trump to stay on the ballot in the big Colorado lawsuit, so Trump won one, Trump won. Maybe we accept it now to show balance with one loss,” Rutt told the News. “While I agree with most that Mr. Trump will lose this immunity case, the Supreme Court may have a different reasoning than the D.C. Circuit. Of course, this is all speculation.”
Horsey told the News that the Supreme Court has “no option” to hear the case given its national importance. He said it was “urgently important” that the court clearly and quickly reject Trump's immunity claims. Horsey said Trump is hoping that his personal and political reasons will intertwine and he will use diplomatic tactics to drag out the legal process.
Greenhouse also commented on the timing of the Supreme Court's rescheduling of the case, noting that some critics believe the scheduled arguments are coming too late. She believes these charges are baseless, and she suggested the judge had no intention of delaying the trial past the election.
“We see no basis for the serious charge of malice,” Greenhouse said. “The court usually hears arguments in late April, but in fact, there were nine other cases this April. And we will decide them all by the end of June. The court heard this argument a few weeks ago. Could it have been scheduled for next fall? Yes, but I doubt it would have made a difference. If the court had not accelerated arguments, this case would not have been heard until next fall. Sho.”
Greenhouse added that the court took just a month to decide whether. Colorado could block President Trump from voting Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, he argued, and there was no reason why the court couldn't fit the case on its schedule.
“This is not a difficult case, and in some ways it's easier than the Colorado case,” Greenhouse told the News. “The obvious answer is 'no immunity.'”
The Supreme Court is located at 1 First St. in Washington, DC.
