WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday over whether Donald Trump is granted immunity from prosecution in a lawsuit accusing him of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
It's a historic day for the court, giving the justices a chance to decide once and for all whether the former president can be prosecuted for his official conduct while in the White House.
But between the decades-long trial surrounding Richard Nixon and the ambiguous constitutional provisions regarding presidential impeachment, there can be some unfamiliar concepts and terminology thrown around.
Here are some tips to help you do it all.
When does the session start?
The court marshal will givel in at 10 a.m. EDT, and Chief Justice John Roberts is expected to make an announcement shortly after arguments begin in the case, so-called “Donald J. Trump v. United States.”
Sessions can easily last two hours or more.
Where can I find live streams?
There are no cameras in the courtroom, but since the pandemic, the court has been livestreaming argument sessions. Listen live at apnews.com/live/trump-supreme-court-arguments-updates or the court's website www.supremecourt.gov. C-SPAN will also carry the discussion at www.c-span.org.
articles of impeachment
Expect to hear more about the impeachment process and its relationship to criminal prosecution (if any).
At the heart of President Trump's immunity argument is the argument that only former presidents who have been impeached and convicted by the Senate can be criminally prosecuted. President Trump was impeached for attempting to undo his election prior to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. However, in 2021, the Senate acquitted rather than convicted.
In support of their argument, Trump's lawyers cited an article of impeachment that says any official convicted by the Senate remains “accountable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment” in court. It lists known provisions of the Constitution.
Prosecutors argue that the Trump campaign misread the clause and that a conviction in the Senate is not a prerequisite for prosecution in court.
Wait, what is this about Richard Nixon?
There will be a lot of discussion about Nixon, but not necessarily for the reasons people think.
Mr. Trump's team has repeatedly called attention to the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, in which the Supreme Court held that former presidents cannot be sued in civil lawsuits for their actions while in office. The case involved the firing of Air Force analyst A. Ernest Fitzgerald, who testified before Congress about cost overruns in transport aircraft production.
Fitzgerald's lawsuit against President Nixon at the time of his removal in 1970 was unsuccessful, with Justice Lewis Powell writing to the court that the president had absolute immunity from civil suit for conduct that fell within the “periphery” of his official duties. I wrote that I have the right to
Importantly, the decision does not absolve the president of criminal liability, although Trump's team says a similar analysis should apply.
Special Counsel Jack Smith's team is also likely to bring up another Supreme Court decision involving Mr. Nixon, which they say supports their case. The ruling is a 1974 ruling that forced the president to turn over incriminating White House tapes for use in prosecuting his inner circle.
Prosecutors also noted that Mr. Nixon accepted a subsequent pardon from President Gerald Ford, rather than rejecting it, and prosecutors said, “The men realized that the former president was a target of prosecution.'' “I was doing it,” he said.
Drone Attack and Team 6 Seals
Judges are known to love presenting lawyers with hypothetical scenarios as a way to test the limits of their arguments. The practice is expected to be on full display Thursday, when the court assesses whether the former president is entitled to absolute immunity.
Trump's lawyers have already said that if the charges are approved, they will file other criminal charges against the president, including authorizing drone strikes that killed Americans and lying to the Democratic-led Congress. They warn that the floodgates will open. The country goes to war.
In a memorable moment during arguments in a federal appeals court in January, a judge asked Trump's lawyers whether a president could be prosecuted for ordering Navy SEALs to assassinate political opponents.
Smith's team clearly distinguishes between what they claim is a typical exercise of presidential power, such as ordering a wartime drone strike, and what Trump is accused of in this case, such as participating in the plan. I want you to pay attention to what you are trying to do. Organizing fake electors in battleground states. Prosecutors say these actions were personal and not the president's.
___
Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
