NICK EICHER, HOST: That is. the world and everything in it Thank you very much for joining us today, April 29, 2024. good morning! I'm Nick Eicher.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: I'm Mary Reichard. It's time for legal sorting.
Last week, the Supreme Court held special oral arguments. The court typically does not hear arguments on Thursdays.
But the circumstances necessitated it, as the High Court had never before faced such a problem. In other words, it would decide whether a former president would be immune from criminal prosecution for his actions. Suspect Will he be involved in any official acts while in office?
Eicher: Of course, this is specifically about former President Donald Trump…and the four criminal charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith last summer. All of these charges are related to Smith's investigation into the Jan. 6 rally and riot at the U.S. Capitol.
However, the result is this There is more than Trump involved in this incident. It sets a precedent for future presidents.
The case went from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court, where a three-judge panel ruled for President Trump. do not have He is entitled to presidential immunity.
The following is the exchange between Trump attorney John Sauer and Judge Florence Pan before the appeals committee.
Florence Pan: Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent who was not impeached be subject to criminal prosecution?
JOHN SAUER: If he's impeached and convicted first.
PAN: So your answer is…no.
Sauer: My answer is a conditional yes. The structure of our Constitution requires a political process that requires impeachment and conviction by the Senate.
Reichard: Some acts are official, some are not. And I think this statement will be central to the debate for the Supreme Court as to whether immunity should be granted or not.
Here's how Trump's lawyer, Sauer, framed the case for the justices.
Sauer: In 234 years of American history, no president has ever been prosecuted for an official act. The framers of our Constitution deemed a vigorous executive branch essential to ensuring freedom….Remove…All current presidents have been subject to de facto blackmail and blackmail by political opponents while in office. You will have to face it. The impact of the court's decision here extends far beyond the facts of this case.
Eicher: Mr. Sauer looks back at history and wonders whether President George W. I asked whether it was possible that President Barack Obama, the man who killed President Barack Obama, could have been charged with murder. Or whether President Biden could soon be prosecuted for flouting the law and inviting mass illegal immigration.
Sauer: The answer to all of these questions is no. Prosecuting the president for acts of officialdom is an innovation that has no foothold in history or tradition, and is at odds with our nation's constitutional structure.
Reichard: What are they saying? innovative That's the Trump team's argument. Special Counsel Jack Smith to former Deputy Attorney General Michael Dreeben:
Michael Dreeben: This court has never granted absolute impunity to any public official…Deleted…The Framers were well aware of the danger of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuse of power, especially the use of public power for private gain. Here, the executive branch enforces parliamentary ordinances and seeks accountability for petitioners' alleged abuse of public power to subvert democracy. It is a compelling public interest.
Both sides cite the following 1982 Supreme Court decision: Nixon vs. Fitzgerald.This case proved that the president has absolute immunity. Civil matter The suit was filed on the grounds of “acts within the scope of official duties.”
The “periphery'' of “public service'' can be interpreted in various ways.
But it did not answer the question of whether the president would be immune from criminal prosecution.
Eicher: Is it reasonable to claim that President Trump that day was trying to ensure election integrity as part of his official duties?
Or will the court deem him to be in campaign mode and make his actions that day unofficial?
As you listen to the arguments, you can see how different judges approach the case. This is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
JUDGE JACKSON: But if there's no threat of criminal prosecution, what's to stop the president from doing whatever he wants? I'm trying to understand what the inhibiting factors are.
Sauer: I don't think there are any such allegations in this case.
But the justices wrestled with drawing the line. Justice Elena Kagan listed the actual charges:
Judge Kagan: Defendants are asking the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives to convene Congress for a hearing based on their claims of election fraud.
Sauer: It's definitely an official act for the president to communicate with state officials about matters of great interest and concern to the federal government.
Reichard: Sauer went on to say that Trump was defending the integrity of the election. Justice Kagan:
Justice Kagan: Well, trying to protect the integrity of the election, that's the defense. The charge is that he tried to overturn the election.
However, no charges can be filed without impeachment and conviction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked:
JUDGE BARRETT: So there are many other people who could be impeached, including the nine people sitting on this court, but impeachment is not the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many others. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that it shouldn't. Officials subject to impeachment. So if the articles of impeachment don't say so, why should the president be any different?
Sauer: …This order is only mandatory with respect to the president.
Mr. Sauer noted that the presidency is unique in our country's constitutional structure.
The justices came up with many more theories…and not all of them sided with Trump's lawyers. Justice Clarence Thomas asked why past presidents have been involved in various coups and covert operations such as the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. There are no charges.
Judge Thomas: Why? If you're right, it would seem ripe for criminal prosecution of someone.
Dreeben: So, Judge Thomas, I think this is the central question. The reason there have been no criminal prosecutions is because there was no crime.
Eicher: The discussion turned to another historic event: the pardon by Richard Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, for Watergate. Doesn't that mean that Nixon understood that he could be held criminally responsible if he committed a crime? did not do it Do you accept forgiveness? Judge Jackson:
Judge Jackson: What happened to President Nixon's pardon? …If everyone thought the president would not be indicted, what did that mean?
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh saw the situation from a different perspective.
Judge Kavanaugh: It's very controversial right now.
Dreeben: Yes.
Kavanaugh: He was very unpopular, which is probably why he lost in '76.
Dreeben: Yes.
Mr. Kavanaugh: I think most people now view this as one of the best decisions in presidential history. If he were to think that if I pardoned Richard Nixon, I too could be investigated for obstruction of justice on the theory that I was obstructing the Richard Nixon investigation. Is there any?
Reichard: Justice Samuel Alito also looked at bigger issues.
JUDGE ALITO: Now, if a sitting member of Congress loses a close, hard-fought election, knowing that the real possibility after he leaves office is that the president won't be able to retire in peace, he could face criminal charges. Wouldn't we then find ourselves in a vicious cycle of hostile political opponents that destabilizes our functioning as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries that have witnessed this process where the losers are thrown into prison.
…Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected and asked leading questions of the government's defenders.
Outside Mayor: A stable democratic society requires the sincerity of public servants, right?
Dreeben: Of course.
Outside Mayor: So that integrity presupposes that they obey the law?
Dreeben: Yes.
And that brings us back to the assumption, which is always a risk when adjudicating disputes.
I think Chief Justice John Roberts really made that point here.
Justice Roberts: The following appellate courts whose decisions we are considering have held that “former presidents may be prosecuted for acts of official conduct, because the facts of the charge do not suggest that the former president acted contrary to the law.'' This is because it means that it will be done.” …And I think that's the clearest statement of the court's decision, and that's why I'm concerned. From what I've read, it just says that because the former president has been indicted, he could be indicted.
Roberts focuses on tautological arguments, which is surprising coming from a court as prestigious as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Eicher: I'm also surprised that Dreven's only answer to the director was actually to trust the government and remember that a grand jury has to indict. This is your safety net.
Reichard: But in law school, I learned the adage that any decent lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
On the same day as the argument, Trump was in New York for a trial on charges of falsifying business records.
And he faces additional charges in Florida and Georgia.
Eicher: And just last month, the Supreme Court unanimously blocked Colorado from using the 14th Amendment's “insurrection clause” to remove Trump from the state's ballot.
What are the charges from Special Prosecutor Jack Smith regarding this case? The judge could send the case back to a lower court to determine what actions are “official” and what are not. That means further delays.
Reichard: And the delay works to Trump's advantage. Preparation for trial takes several months.
Early voting begins in the fall.
If the Supreme Court rules that Trump has immunity and wins in November, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case or pardon himself.
By the way, no court has ever ruled on whether the president can do it. that.
That's this week's legal arrangement!
WORLD Radio transcripts are produced under tight deadlines. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The reliable recording of WORLD Radio programs is the audio recording.
