Marissa Zupancic is JURIST's Washington, DC correspondent, JURIST senior editor, and a 3L at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.She is stationed in Washington during her tenure Semester in DC.
Today I attended oral arguments in Trump v. United States at the U.S. Supreme Court. This lawsuit concerns whether the president has absolute immunity after leaving office for acts committed while president. This will be my last appearance at the Supreme Court as JURIST's first Washington, DC correspondent. When I arrived at the courthouse at 8 a.m., there were only a few protesters, but I recognized some from when I attended the Trump v. Anderson argument in February.
The oral argument was scheduled to last one hour, but lasted nearly three hours. This time I could actually see Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and the lawyers arguing in court, but my view was still obscured behind one of the gates loaded with acorns.
John Sauer made the case against Trump. Mr. Sauer began the discussion by highlighting the unique nature of this case, stating, “Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, the presidency as we know it would not exist.'' 234 years of American history No president was ever prosecuted for any official act.'' Going further, Sauer brought up the outcome of this case. Sauer asked whether President Obama could face murder charges for ordering drone strikes that killed Americans overseas. This example stands in contrast to the charges leveled against President Trump in an August 2023 indictment that included:
- Conspiring to defraud the United States by fraud, fraud, or deception for the purpose of impairing, interfering with, or defeating the federal government's vote collection, tabulation, or certification process;
- Conspiring to corruptly obstruct and obstruct the efforts of the United States Congress to collect, tabulate, and certify the January 6, 2021 election results.and
- Conspiring against the right of the people of the United States to vote and have their votes counted;
Sauer argued that former presidents have “absolute immunity” that protects them from prosecution for official acts they committed while in office. Justice Clarence Thomas asked Sauer to state the basis for this absolute immunity, which Sauer argued was found in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. This section is known as the executive vesting clause. This provision states, in part, “Executive power is vested in the President of the United States.” Sauer also argued that the president's “official acts” are protected from judicial system scrutiny.
Chief Justice John Roberts then asked Sauer to elaborate on the scope of the president's official conduct. Mr. Sauer said that according to previous Supreme Court precedents, it is not an official act to accept a bribe in order to be appointed as an ambassador, but it is not an official act to accept a bribe to appoint an ambassador, but it is He explained that the act falls under the category of an official act by the president.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor examined the scope of Sauer's immunity claim. She asked, “If a president decides that a rival is corrupt and orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, can he receive immunity within the scope of his official conduct?'' Ta. Mr. Sauer basically answered in typical lawyer fashion, “It depends,” but it could also be seen that the act could be a public act that would be subject to this “absolute immunity.” Ta. Sotomayor explained that he considers an act of officialdom to be separate from the assassination hypothesis because this hypothesis is committed for personal gain rather than public service. She summarized her thoughts on Sauer's claims: “The president has the right to use his own office accouterments for entirely personal gain without incurring criminal liability. That's what you're trying to get us to pursue. It’s a thing.”
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson addressed former President Richard Nixon's pardon from former President Gerald Ford following the Watergate scandal. Sauer explained that presidents throughout history have not believed they would be prosecuted. Mr. Jackson questioned why, if this was true, Mr. Nixon received a pardon from Ford even though he was not prosecuted. Sauer distinguished this set of facts, saying that Nixon was under investigation for both official and private conduct. From here, Judge Amy Coney Barrett found that Mr. Sauer agreed that private acts by a former president, separate from official acts, did not qualify for immunity.
Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that there is no explicit immunity clause in the Constitution. She said: “The framers knew how to do this. [put an immunity clause in the Constitution]. Some state constitutions had immunity clauses. They knew how to give legislative exemptions. They did not grant immunity to the president. ” Sauer rebutted this argument by reasserting that the Executive Vesting Clause provides immunity for the president. Kagan also asked Sauer if a president would have immunity from ordering the military to launch a coup, to which Sauer suggested there would be immunity even without impeachment.
Michael Dreeben argued for the United States with the Department of Justice. “This court has never granted absolute immunity to any public official,” he said in his opening statement, also noting the unprecedented nature of the case.
Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Dreeben whether adequate safeguards were in place to prevent politically motivated prosecution of the former president if the court found that there was no absolute immunity. “We are not supporting an administration that we believe would maliciously expose a former president to criminal prosecution due to political animus, without sufficient evidence,” Dreeben explained. Politically driven prosecutions would violate the constitution. ” In Waite v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that selective prosecution is unconstitutional. Dreeben also explained that prosecutors still need to have enough evidence to justify a grand jury indicting the former president to meet constitutional requirements.
Dreeben also said there are parts of the acting president that Congress cannot criminalize, which constitute the core duties of the executive branch. These include things like foreign recognition and judicial appointments.
In response to a question from Justice Samuel Alito, Mr. Dreeben explained that the president's acting under the general counsel of the U.S. attorney general is an absolute defense against criminal charges. For example, the president can ask the attorney general legal questions, such as whether a potential lawsuit is legal. If the attorney general says the lawsuit is legal, it could provide a defense against future charges brought against the president.
Finally, Mr. Alito asked Mr. Dreeben whether the president had the right to pardon them, to which Mr. Dreeben replied that the Justice Department has not taken a public position on that discussion. I answered. But Dreeben pointed out that there was a memo from the General Counsel's Office suggesting the president could not write a self-pardon.
After the altercation, there was a raucous scene outside.what the man wore Appeared Being in Revolutionary War attire, speakers were set up with microphones and guitars to sing songs. He performed on a small stage next to a billboard that claimed to depict a picture of a “real dictator” like Kim Jong Un. Along with his song, another protester chanted, “Name a bigger idiot than Trump!” into a megaphone. Additionally, there was a greater police presence than at the time. trump vs anderson, Capitol Police patrol the streets and Supreme Court Police surround the building. The extra police presence may have been in response to the death of a man who set himself on fire outside the New York courthouse where Trump's hush money trial was being held.
The court's historic decision will shape future charges faced by former presidents. Meanwhile, Trump continues to lead in primary voting and is likely to win the Republican nomination in July.
During my four months as JURIST's Washington correspondent, I had the opportunity to attend three oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Two of these debates were particularly historic, involving former U.S. presidents and current presidential candidates. Working at JURIST supplemented my legal education and brought me outside of the law school building and into real-world law reform. As a law student journalist, it was a great honor to sit next to a professional reporter, and I am forever grateful for this experience.
The opinions expressed in the JURIST Dispatch are solely those of our field correspondents and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST editors, staff, donors, or the University of Pittsburgh.
