WASHINGTON, D.C. – Justice Samuel Alito sparred with government lawyers Thursday during oral arguments, with a majority of Supreme Court justices saying President Donald Trump enjoys a level of immunity that lasts beyond his term. I sympathized with the arguments of former President Trump’s lawyer.
Alito pressed government lawyer Michael Dreven on the government’s argument that the former president is not afforded any form of immunity. Mr. Dreeben, on behalf of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team, refuted Mr. Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
As Alito said, Dreeben said there is no immunity for former presidents, but that “a form of special protection, that is, when laws that apply to everyone apply to former presidents, The authors claim that they have received the benefit of “must be interpreted differently.” ”
Dreeben agreed, believing it was due to “the general principle that courts interpret laws to avoid serious constitutional issues.” And that has been the practice of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for years. ”
Mr. Alito questioned Mr. Dreben’s assertion that courts would avoid prosecuting former presidents, and whether that protection was really protection at all.
Okay. So I think this is less just a quarrel over terminology and more to do with the difference between what a former president gets, whether it’s some kind of immunity or special protection, and you know… I think you are fully aware of this. .
If it is simply a form of special protection, in other words, if there are different interpretations of the statute that apply to former presidents, then that should be challenged in court. A former president can file a motion to remove and cite the OLC opinion, but the district court won’t say, “Well, that’s fine, because I’m not bound by the OLC and have a different interpretation.” , you might say, “Let’s go to court.”
A trial will then have to take place, which may prevent the former president from participating in other activities he would have liked to pursue. And the outcome will depend on the jury, the jury instructions, and how the jury returns. Once a verdict is obtained, it must be appealed.
So if you take the form you suggest, the protection is significantly diluted. So why is it better?
“It’s better that way because it’s more balanced,” Dreeben replied.
Alito also referred to the “old idea of indicting a ham sandwich,” noting that some district attorneys have a lot of influence over grand juries and can get them to indict a ham sandwich.
The case is trump vs usaUnited States Supreme Court No. 23-939.
Bradley Jay is Breitbart News’ Capitol Hill correspondent. Follow him on X/Twitter. @BradleyAJay.
