The final case the Supreme Court will hear for its 2023-24 term is that former President Donald Trump illegally conspired to stay in power after losing the presidential election to Joe Biden. This is the most important because it claims immunity from prosecution for the charges. 2020 Election.
Apart from its implications for the 2024 election, the incident has far-reaching implications that could dramatically change the scope of presidential power for decades to come.
“Without executive privilege, it would be impossible for the president to properly carry out his duties and he would be putting the United States of America in grave and eternal danger!” Trump, 77, I was warned by Truth Social last week In one of his many posts about this incident.
Here’s what you need to know before oral arguments begin Thursday.
How did this incident happen?
On August 1 of last year, special counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with making “knowingly false” claims about voter fraud and conspiring to prevent the counting and certification of legitimate electoral votes. Criminal charges were filed against him on four counts.
But Trump’s lawyers insist the 45th president was simply carrying out his presidential duty to protect the election.
The theory is that President Trump’s infamous January 2, 2021 phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which the president told election officials he needed help reversing his defeat. This means that actions such as asking someone to “find” 11,780 votes were completely legal.
“The language of the articles of impeachment confirms the original meaning of the Vesting Clause: that current and former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for acts of office.” Trump’s lawyers said in a March briefing..
Smith’s team vehemently disputes that claim. In their response they say: “An alleged criminal plot to overturn an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power to a lawfully elected successor is an act that should not be excused, even if other acts should be impunity. This is a typical example.”
Trump’s lawyers warned that if the judge rules in Smith’s favor, future presidents would be severely handicapped in their ability to carry out their duties.
Former Chicago federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti is skeptical of that claim.
“We’ve never had impunity,” Mariotti told the Post. “Presidents have lived with the possibility of indictment, and this country has done well. ” he said.
“SEAL Team 6” questions
A striking example of the impact of Trump’s claims was demonstrated in January when the immunity issue was discussed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent (and has not been impeached) be subject to criminal prosecution?” Justice Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, once asked. .
“If he had been impeached and convicted first,” Trump’s lawyer John Sauer said.
What did the lower court rule?
Back in December, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected President Trump’s immunity claim, ruling that the former president was not eligible for a lifetime release from prison.
The Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals also ruled against Trump in February, saying his actions after the 2020 election “if proven amounted to an unprecedented attack on the structure of our nation’s government.” He is said to have inserted himself into a process in which the president had no role. ”
In late February, the Supreme Court announced it would accept Trump’s appeal and put Smith’s case on hold until the immunity issue was resolved.
Can Trump win even if he loses?
Many experts, in the court’s own words, are “skeptical that the former president will reverse his losing streak.”[w]To what extent do former presidents enjoy presidential immunity, and if so, to what extent? Exempted from criminal prosecution for acts suspected of involvement Official acts while in office. ”
Mariotti predicted that the wording of the question suggested it was unlikely the high court would “certify” the president’s immunity and fully exonerate Trump.
But the former president may have done enough to avoid facing a day in court on the charges brought against Mr. Smith.
“The goal of the Trump campaign and Trump’s defense team was to delay it as much as possible so that as few people as possible would have to go to trial before the election,” Williams College political science professor Justin Crow told the Post on Wednesday. . .
The trial before Judge Chutkan was scheduled to begin on March 4, the day before the Super Tuesday Republican primary.
However, the case was stayed due to an immunity challenge.
If the Supreme Court rules, a decision could not be handed down until late June, but Chutkan will be busy trying to ensure that the cases he tried before the election, namely a rematch between Trump and Biden, go through. You will be faced with a busy schedule.
There’s also another wrinkle. The justices will send the case back to lower courts to clarify issues such as what constitutes an “official act” that warrants the president’s immunity, potentially further delaying the case.
If Trump defeats Biden and takes over on January 20, 2025, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case against him, an unprecedented step.
“President Trump is not breaking the law by directing the Justice Department to drop the case,” Crow said. “Some people may complain, but it’s more of a norm than a rule.”
Conscious of the race against time, Smith petitioned the Supreme Court in December to expedite the immunity case beyond the D.C. Court of Appeals, but the high court refused.
President Trump’s “double jeopardy” theory
Notably, the Supreme Court did not consider a second argument by Trump’s lawyers that Congress’ impeachment of Trump in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot would bar the prosecution of Smith. This has been decided.
Mariotti said the route was “unlikely to succeed.”
“Double jeopardy is a concept in criminal law,” he told the Post. “And impeachment is a political exercise.”
Is this incident unprecedented?
no. Crow said there have been at least three previous lawsuits involving former presidents that dealt with immunity issues.
“There have been lawsuits about this before, and the issue of presidential immunity is not a foreign issue,” Crow said. “I think what’s notable about this case is the scope of President Trump’s claims about the nature of immunity.”
In the first case, 1974’s United States v. Nixon, the court unanimously ruled that the 37th president must turn over audiotapes and other subpoenaed materials related to the Watergate scandal to a federal district court. The court issued a ruling rejecting Nixon’s claims of presidential privilege. item.
Nixon resigned as president 16 days later.
Eight years later, the court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents have “absolute immunity” from civil suits seeking damages “based on official acts.”
In 1997, the court clarified its position in Clinton v. Jones, allowing former Arkansas government employee Paula Jones to sue then-President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment that allegedly occurred before Clinton became president. The decision was made.
Smith’s team also points to former President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon as a precedent proving that former presidents are subject to prosecution after leaving office.
Trump is the first former or sitting US president to face criminal charges, 88 of which span four charges.
In addition to the Smith case from Washington, D.C., the former president also faces rap issues in Manhattan, South Florida and Georgia.
