The Supreme Court appears poised to grant former President Trump at least some protection from criminal prosecution Thursday after hearing two hours of arguments from lawyers and prosecutors.
Here are six things you need to know about the historic day in court.
Judges were wary of blanket immunity claims
Justices from both ideological camps expressed skepticism about Trump’s broadest argument, that former presidents should be granted absolute immunity for all official conduct while in the White House.
President Trump’s attorney D. He argued that such a principle was necessary.
The court’s liberal justices put pressure on Sauer, questioning whether his push for broad immunity would encourage future presidents to commit criminal acts.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson told Sauer that he was “trying to understand what is preventing the Oval Office from becoming a hub for criminal activity in this country.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Trump’s argument allows him to do more than make “mistakes” while in office.
“The president has the right to exploit the devices of his office for purely personal gain without facing criminal charges. That’s what you’re trying to hold us to,” she said. Stated.
Conservative justices have also expressed skepticism at times. Even Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s leading conservatives, called Trump’s request “very strong.”
Hypotheses drove the discussion.
The justices peppered Sauer with theories about whether presidential immunity would protect everything from selling nuclear codes to ordering the military to assassinate rivals.
“Now, let’s say that the official act is to appoint an ambassador, and the president appoints a particular individual to a country, but in exchange for a bribe.” If you do, I’ll give you a million dollars.” How do you analyze that? ” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
“If a president decides that a rival is corrupt and orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, does that provide immunity within the scope of the president’s official conduct?” Sotomayor asked. .
“That well could be an official act,” Sauer said in response to Sotomayor’s scenario.
Justice Elena Kagan expressed caution at seeing such a response.
“The answer sounds like, ‘Yes, according to my tests, it’s an official act,’ which certainly sounds bad, right?” Kagan said, and Sauer agreed. .
There are many signs that a trial will be delayed.
The justices’ lengthy discussion about how to put guardrails around official and private conduct suggested the possibility of creating some form of immunity that would last beyond the president’s term.
That would almost certainly delay Trump’s numerous legal proceedings.
The court delayed Trump’s election interference lawsuit in the first place by simply taking up the immunity claim. Even if the case is sent back to the district court for further consideration, time will only be wasted further.
Any further decisions could be appealed, which could bring the case back to the High Court.
Trump’s other two legal proceedings could also be affected.
Trump has made similar claims in the Georgia election interference case and the Florida documents lawsuit.
Judge explores the concept of politicized prosecution
At various times, the justices danced around another concern that Trump has repeatedly raised: that he is the victim of a politicized prosecution.
“Relying on belief — sometimes the prosecutor’s good faith is not enough — in some cases. That’s not what I’m suggesting here,” Roberts said.
Like Roberts, the other justices appear wary of delving into Trump’s claims that the charges were politically motivated.
After Mr. Alito raised concerns about the politicization of prosecutors, Michael Dreeben, a lawyer on special counsel Jack Smith’s team, began bringing up the facts of Mr. Trump’s case. Mr. Alito pulled him back, insisting that the discussion remain “abstract.”
“The Attorney General and the majority of the attorneys at the Department of Justice, both of us have long been with the Department of Justice, are honorable men, and take our professional and ethical responsibilities seriously,” Alito said. Told.
“But there are exceptions, right?”
Dreeben stressed that there are “multilayered safeguards” to protect against unjust prosecution.
“We will not support an administration that we believe would subject a former president to criminal prosecution due to political hostility, without sufficient evidence and in bad faith. Politically driven prosecutions would violate the Constitution. ” he said.
Mr. Smith’s status as special counsel came up at times throughout the arguments, and at one point Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to the opinion of two conservative law professors that Mr. Smith’s appointment was illegal.
“Did you object to the appointment of a special counsel in this case?” Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Sauer, Mr. Trump’s lawyer.
Smith, who was sitting at the attorney’s table, slouched in his chair and turned inward toward Sauer.
Sauer agreed with the law professors’ opinion, but had not “yet” raised such an objection in this case, his lawyer explained.
Conservative justices express displeasure at Smith’s accusations
Several conservative judges expressed displeasure with the charges against Trump for subverting a federal election.
The Supreme Court is actively considering a January 6 defendant’s challenge that could narrow the scope of the statute that prosecutors used to charge hundreds of rioters and Trump with obstruction. .
“Nobody knows what ‘corrupt intent’ means. We were circling that tree,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said, referring to a key legal issue in the case. he said.
He later added, “We might find out soon.”
Two conservatives, Mr. Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, complained about the breadth of the federal crime of conspiring to defraud the federal government, one of Mr. Trump’s four charges in the case. Stated.
“The problem is, you know, obstruction and vague laws. [Section] 371 (Conspiracy to Fraud the United States) could be used against many presidential activities throughout history by creative prosecutors seeking to go after the president,” Kavanaugh said.
Alito called this “unlike most other fraud provisions.”
“I don’t want to dispute that specific use. [Section] 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States, applies to the specific facts here, but don’t you agree that that is a strange open-ended legal prohibition?” he asked.
The judges agreed on a huge stake.
The justices repeatedly urged lawyers to look away from the facts of Trump’s case and instead consider how the Supreme Court’s decision would affect future administrations.
As Gorsuch said, “We’re writing rules that will stand the test of time.”
Kavanaugh suggested that their decision would be “reversed and used against the current president or the next president.”
“In my view, this case has tremendous implications for the presidency, the future of the presidency, and the future of the country,” Kavanaugh said.
Alito suggested that if it turns out the former president lacks immunity, he would try to pardon himself in his final days in office.
“Incumbent members of Congress who lost a closely contested election know that the real possibility after leaving office is that the president will not be able to retire peacefully, and that he may be subject to criminal prosecution by violent political forces.” So, opponents, doesn’t that put us in a vicious cycle that destabilizes the country’s functioning as a democracy?” Alito asked.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
