The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared likely to reject former President Donald Trump's claim for absolute immunity from prosecution over election interference, although several justices expressed reservations about the charge. This could result in significant delays, possibly beyond the November election.
A majority of the justices do not appear to accept an argument for absolute immunity that would prevent Special Counsel Jack Smith from prosecuting Trump on charges of conspiring to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 election. is.
But during arguments that lasted more than two-and-a-half hours during the court's first consideration of criminal charges against the former president, several conservative justices suggested they could limit when the former president can be prosecuted and move the case to a lower court. suggested that it may have to be remanded. Go to court before the trial begins.
“Every decision we make applies to all future presidents,” Justice Samuel Alito said.
The timing of the Supreme Court's decision could be as important as its outcome. Trump, the 2024 Republican presidential candidate, has insisted on delaying the trial until after his election, and the longer the judge delays his decision, the more likely Trump will win. If Trump returns to office, he could either order the Justice Department to dismiss the case or, as two judges have suggested, pardon himself if convicted.
The court's conservatives overturned decades of precedent on abortion and affirmative action after winning a supermajority to confirm three Trump appointees. President Trump is currently seeking a ruling that one of the fundamental tenets of the American system of government, that “no one is above the law,'' should be rejected, at least as far as it applies to him. There is.
The lively cross-examination of all nine justices left a strong impression that the court was not aiming for a quick, consensual decision that would allow the trial to begin quickly.
Two of President Trump's three appointees to the high court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Alito, have said they are concerned not with the case against Trump, but rather with the decision being made against future presidents. He said it was the impact it had on the
These judges intervened every time Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben tried to focus on President Trump's actions. “This case has huge implications for the presidency, the future of the presidency, and the future of the country,” Kavanaugh said. Gorsuch said the court is writing decisions that are “long in the making.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, seemed less enthusiastic about the arguments of Trump attorney D. John Sauer, who is trying to find a way to get the trial done.
Smith's team is seeking a quick resolution. The court typically issues its final opinion by the end of June, about four months before the election. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the trial, said pretrial matters could last up to three months.
President Trump in a New York courtroom
The court has been extremely quick in ruling in previous cases involving presidential power, ruling in the Watergate tapes case against President Richard Nixon just 16 days after arguments were heard. Earlier this year, the justices took less than a month to unanimously rule that states could not exclude Trump from their ballots.
Trump, the first former president to be charged with a crime, had said Thursday he wanted to go to the Supreme Court. Instead, he is in a New York courtroom accused of falsifying his business records to keep damaging information from voters in order to silence a former porn star's claims that they had a sexual relationship. being tried for a crime. encounter.
Sauer argued that former presidents have absolute immunity for official actions. Otherwise, he said, politically motivated prosecutions of former Oval Office occupiers would become commonplace, and the president would be unable to function as commander in chief if he had to worry about criminal charges.
Lower courts have rejected these arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals.
Several justices delved into the definition of what constitutes official conduct and whether charges based on official conduct should be dismissed.
Justice Elena Kagan once wondered whether a former president could escape prosecution for ordering a coup or selling nuclear secrets. Sauer said if they are determined to be official acts, prosecution may not be allowed.
“That's certainly disgusting, isn't it?” Kagan asked.
Chief Justice John Roberts recalled a president accused of accepting bribes in exchange for ambassadorial appointments. If the prosecutor had to remove the official act, that is, the appointment, how could the prosecution proceed? “It's like a one-legged stool, right?” Roberts asked.
Mr. Smith's election interference conspiracy case in Washington is just one of four criminal cases Mr. Trump faces. Mr. Smith was in court Thursday, seated at the table of attorneys participating in the case.
Smith's team argues that the framers of the Constitution never intended for a president to be above the law, and that in any case, they were involved in a plan to recruit fake electors in battleground states won by Biden. They say the actions Trump is accused of, including his participation, are illegal. It is in no way part of the president's official duties. Dreeben said that even if some actions, such as conversations with Justice Department officials, were considered part of the president's authority, they should still remain in the indictment.
President Trump's conversation with then-Vice President Mike Pence, in which he encouraged Trump to reject some electoral votes on January 6, 2021, could also qualify as an official act.
Mr. Barrett asked Mr. Dreeben whether Mr. Smith's team could “proceed with the work on the basis of the private action and withdraw the official action.” Dreeben said that might be possible, especially if prosecutors could use conversations with Justice Department officials and Pence to make their case.
Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Mr. Trump's request for absolute immunity from district attorney subpoenas for his financial records. The case unfolded during President Trump's term and resulted in a criminal investigation, but no charges were filed.
Justice Clarence Thomas was supposed to block enforcement of the subpoena citing Trump's responsibilities as president, but he still rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity and rejected the clause in the Constitution that ratified it. pointed out how it is understood by those who have done so.
“The text of the Constitution…does not confer absolute immunity on the president,” Thomas wrote in 2020.
Court 'doesn't seem to agree' with Nixon, expert says
Commentators speculated about why the court took up the case in the first place.
Phillip Bobbitt, a constitutional law scholar at Columbia University Law School, said he was concerned about the delay, but said there was value in the decision, which amounted to “a definitive statement by the Supreme Court that we are a government of laws, not a government of men.” He said he thinks there is.
Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, said on the Lawfare blog that courts may also be concerned about how their decisions will affect future presidents.
But Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the court should never have taken up the case because an ideologically diverse panel of the federal appeals court in Washington had adequately addressed the issue.
President Roosevelt said, “If we were going to file a lawsuit, we should have done it sooner, because then there was a good chance we wouldn't be able to finish the case before the election.'' “Even Richard Nixon said the American people have a right to know if their president is a fraud. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to agree with this.”
The court has several options for deciding this case, but something between an outright victory for Trump or the prosecutors seemed most likely.
Courts may clarify when former presidents are protected from prosecution. In that case, it could either declare that Mr. Trump's alleged conduct easily crossed the line or send the case back to Mr. Chutkhan, who could decide whether Mr. Trump should go to trial. .
(AP)
