The Supreme Court is poised to hear and rule on the scope of presidential immunity, but the case takes on unprecedented political significance just six months before the 2024 presidential election.
“This is one of the most important cases ever to come before the Supreme Court,” said Norm Eisen, who served as special counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during President Trump's first impeachment trial. “The essence of this case is the difference between continuing to preserve America's democracy and constitutional republic with the checks and balances that are the hallmark of the presidency, or embarking on a path to dictatorship.” The shocking arrogance of the power the president seeks. ”
The case stems from a four-count indictment against Trump handed down by a federal grand jury last summer related to what prosecutors say was an effort to overturn the results of his 2020 presidential election defeat and undermine American democracy. It stems from a criminal indictment. Trump is charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, one count of obstructing and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and one count of conspiracy to violate the rights.
Mr. Trump maintains his innocence, characterizing the incident as political persecution and election interference by a cabal of President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, and liberal prosecutors and judges.
The case was brought by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith and supervised by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Mr. Chutkan had originally set a March 4 start date for the trial, but postponed it until the issue of whether President Trump could invoke executive privilege as a defense was resolved.
In December, the same judge rejected a motion by Trump's lawyers to dismiss the charges entirely on presidential privilege and constitutional grounds, ruling that Trump's words and actions as a presidential candidate do not necessarily require executive privilege to lead to civil liability. It stipulates that there is no protection from
The judge said the presidency “does not confer a lifetime 'get out of jail free' pass.” Former presidents are not subject to special conditions regarding federal criminal liability. ”
Manga Week April 22-26
The ruling came on the same day that a federal appeals court handed down a similar dismissal to Trump, saying nearly all of the president's speeches are protected from lawsuits and have been cited frequently by Trump over the years. It was the first ominous sign for the excuse. His efforts were related to the official duties of the President.
Anticipating further delay tactics by Trump's lawyers over the presidential immunity issue and trying to get the trial back on track, Smith pre-emptively asked the Supreme Court and the federal appeals court in Washington to resolve the presidential immunity issue. filed a petition seeking.
On February 6, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump cannot invoke presidential immunity as a defense.
“For the purposes of this criminal proceeding, former President Trump has assumed the defense of all other criminal defendants and has become a Trump citizen,” they wrote in a unanimous 57-page ruling, a major blow to Trump's defense strategy. gave. “But the executive privileges that may have protected him during his time as president no longer protect him from this prosecution.”
The ruling was not unexpected, as the justices had voiced skepticism about the former president's reliance on immunity during a hearing in which Smith and Trump's lawyers were at odds over the issue.
Among other things, the justices took issue with Trump's lawyers' underlying assumption that the Senate must first impeach and convict the president before prosecutors can bring criminal charges against him. They also pointed out that some of the claims made by Trump's lawyers are paradoxical, such as some senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, claiming that Trump was responsible for any criminal activity. He noted that he voted against impeaching Trump based on the assumption that it could and would be handled by the United States. Criminal justice system.
The justices also went to great lengths to understand the limits of presidential immunity, even asking Trump's lawyers whether the same logic applied to a president who used the military to assassinate political opponents, for example. .
Trump nonetheless appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, and the justices agreed on February 28 to consider it. Legal experts expect Thursday's oral arguments to revisit many of the same issues that arose in the federal appeals court hearing.
“Was he absolutely immune from any criminal prosecution?” asks Lawrence Tribe, a professor emeritus at Harvard University who specializes in American constitutional law. “No reasonable jurist thinks the correct answer is beyond doubt. The correct answer is no.”
Notably, the issue of executive immunity in cases of presidential criminal prosecution has never been resolved, and President Trump's interpretation of it is far from universally agreed upon. Judges and justices have long considered administrative immunity related to civil matters, and the Supreme Court has ruled that commanders-in-chief are afforded significant protections even for actions not directly related to official duties. concluded.
Part of Mr. Smith's 81-page petition to the Supreme Court stems from the high court's unanimous ruling against Mr. Nixon's attempt to assert executive authority and block the use of evidence at trial. It detailed the 1974 case United States v. Nixon.
But today's high court is very different. The court is mired in ethics violations and has the lowest approval ratings in the high court's history, with three of the court's six conservative justices appointed by Mr. Trump himself. This is a dynamic that is likely to have far-reaching implications for American democracy.
In fact, a Marist poll in March found that 75% of Americans think Trump should not be immune from criminal prosecution, up from 65% who said the same in January. And the Research Collaborative, a research hub for local and national organizations, found that a majority of voters, including third-party and undecided voters, believe that at least some of the conservative justices on the court support Mr. Trump. He says he believes he is taking action.
“They don't think that what's happening is randomly bad. They think it's intentionally bad,” said Anat Shenkar, an advisor to the joint research institute. Osorio says. “We found, again and again, that voters were disappointed in this event and understood the politicized nature of it.”
With only six months left until the 2024 presidential election, which is expected to be a rematch between candidates who faced off in the 2020 election, which is at the heart of the presidential immunity decision, legal experts say that He says timing is important. ultimate essence.
“I sincerely implore the court to act quickly,” said Olivia Troy, former special assistant for counterterrorism and homeland security to former Vice President Mike Pence. “Donald Trump is known for his strategy of delay, and I hope the Supreme Court is not used as a pawn by him. Those of us who have worked in the Trump administration know how skilled this machine is. I know very well. And given what's at stake here from a democracy standpoint, I hope we don't delay it any further.”
Further complicating matters is that the decision does not necessarily have to be absolute. For example, the justices acknowledged that presidential immunity for some acts is appropriate in some circumstances, but to determine which of the crimes Trump is accused of would pass that test. You could also send your questions back to Chutkan.
History shows that the Supreme Court can act quickly on issues of historical importance.
Bush v. Gore, which ended Florida's 2000 election recount and gave Bush victory, was decided four days after it was filed, one day after oral arguments. The 1971 Pentagon Papers decision was handed down four days after arguments were heard. And in the Watergate tape case, the justices issued their opinion 16 days later.
If they act with similar urgency, Mr. Chutkan would at least be given the opportunity to start a trial before the November elections.
There is no formal process for how judges decide whether to expedite a case or how they schedule oral arguments and the issuance of opinions, but the workflow and issues judges try to maintain are There are internal norms regarding the judicial culture. says legal experts. For example, a long schedule could make it look like, at best, we're debating the issue at length, and at worst, it might look like we're playing into President Trump's policies.
Chief Justice John Roberts has been reluctant to prompt his colleagues to proceed, especially in the presence of three liberal justices and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is perhaps more moderately conservative in his views than other Republican-appointed justices. There may be pressure to accelerate the process. But if the judge insists on a 60-day review process, the ruling will stall — a scenario many legal experts fear is already underway.
“Courts can, of course, issue decisions quickly when necessary,” said Michael Luttig, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, who was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush. . “We could hear this case tomorrow and issue an opinion pretty easily a week later. That's not going to happen. The court has told us that that's not going to happen. It was an unusual statement by the court to extend arguments in this case for two months from the date the suit was granted.
“I hope, and we should all really hope, that the court will take ample time to make a decision and issue an opinion. This is the last case to be decided this term. I expect it to be.”
