Unlock Editor's Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf has chosen her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
As President Donald Trump battles charges of interfering in the 2020 election, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in Thursday over how to define the scope of the president's immunity from criminal prosecution.
During oral arguments, the court asked to draw the line between the president's private and public conduct, and may need to send the matter back to lower courts to assess the nature of President Trump's actions. he suggested.
Such a move could further delay one of the most significant criminal trials against Trump, the Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential election, in November. The ruling is expected to be handed down before the end of the high court's term, usually in late June.
Trump offered a broad interpretation of immunity, saying that even in the most extreme circumstances, a president can only be indicted if he has previously been impeached and convicted by Congress of a similar crime. claims.
The court's decision affects the pillars of his defense and will have far-reaching implications across the U.S. government, with long-term implications for the nation's balance of power and presidential accountability.
Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, said in court that allowing the president to be prosecuted for official actions is “incompatible with the constitutional structure of our country.” He acknowledged that the president's private actions could be subject to criminal charges, but added: “The presidency as we know it does not exist.”
Michael Dreeben, a Justice Department attorney, said there is no constitutional basis for the kind of expanded immunity President Trump is seeking, and that such “novel theories do not apply to bribery, treason, sedition, and murder.” “It would absolve the former president from criminal liability.”
Some judges questioned what would be considered an official act. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not insist on that distinction. What if “the world's strongest person”? . . You may come into office knowing that you may commit a crime with no chance of being punished, but understand what is preventing the Oval Office from becoming a hub of criminal activity in this country. “I'm trying,” she said.
Liberals on the court objected to the broad legal protections Mr. Trump sought. “Isn't the bottom line: the president is not a monarch, and the president should not be above the law?” Elena Kagan asked, citing the Constitution.
Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative member of the court and a Trump appointee, also appears skeptical. She disputed Sauer's assertion that some laws may not apply to presidents, saying, “Why would a president say he is subject to prosecution after impeachment, but at the same time say he is exempt from these criminal laws?” Can you say that?” he protested.
Other conservative justices seemed more sympathetic to Trump's arguments. Samuel Alito said the president was in a “very precarious position.” Brett Kavanaugh said the president is “like every other American subject to prosecution for any personal conduct.” . . The problem is that the act was carried out in a public capacity. ”
The Supreme Court case stems from a federal indictment brought by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, who accused President Trump of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
President Trump has called the criminal case and the three others facing courts across the country a political witch hunt.
The former president said he had wanted to attend Thursday's hearing but could not because he is on trial in Manhattan criminal court on charges of falsifying business records to cover up an affair.
The justices are considering a particularly complex aspect of U.S. law. There is no law that exempts the president from criminal liability, and there is limited legal precedent. The high court has ruled on the president's immunity from civil liability, but has not yet decided whether it extends to criminal cases.
The Supreme Court recently decided on another politically sensitive case involving Trump. Last month, Colorado reversed its decision to exclude the former president from voting for his role in the insurrection when his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
