The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to announce a ruling on former President Donald Trump’s historic immunity claim, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for presidential power and accountability. The court heard arguments on Thursday regarding whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The justices are divided on the issue, with a decision expected by June.
Trump asserts that he has “absolute” immunity for actions he deems official, although he denies any wrongdoing. The conservative-leaning justices appeared somewhat receptive to this argument but seemed inclined to exclude a president’s private conduct from such immunity. The court’s ruling will determine if Trump will face trial before the November election on charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the United States.
The Supreme Court does not allow cameras inside its courtroom, so sketch artists provide the only visual representation of these significant legal moments. Trump, reacting to the arguments, reiterated his belief in presidential immunity, stating, “You don’t have a president — or at most you could say it would be a ceremonial president. That’s not what the founders had in mind.”
The justices acknowledged that their ruling could reshape the contours of presidential power. The court appeared reluctant to fully endorse Trump’s sweeping immunity claims but also hesitant to give special counsel Jack Smith unrestricted authority to pursue the charges. This could result in the case being sent back to lower courts, potentially delaying a trial until after the election.
Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, conceded that some of the alleged conduct might be considered private, a significant admission given Trump’s earlier sweeping claims of immunity. This distinction between official and private acts was a focal point of the hearing.
The Supreme Court seems unlikely to fully resolve the immunity question, leaving much of the work to lower courts. This could delay a trial originally set for March 4, playing into Trump’s strategy of postponement. The justices’ reluctance to dismiss the case outright suggests that the matter could return to the Supreme Court after further litigation at the lower-court level.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the “case is submitted,” but the timeline for a decision remains uncertain. The court is already facing criticism for the time it took to decide whether to take the case, with concerns that the slow pace benefits Trump’s broader legal strategy.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that the case could go to trial without further appeals court involvement, potentially avoiding additional delays. She questioned whether the trial-level court could sort out what constitutes official or private acts of the presidency. Special counsel attorney Michael Dreeben argued that the indictment is substantially about private conduct, which should be presented to a jury.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that in an “ordinary” case, a trial would proceed even if a criminal defendant had immunity for certain actions. Dreeben agreed, emphasizing that many of Trump’s actions around the 2020 election were part of his presidential duties and not protected by immunity.
The attorney for special counsel Jack Smith argued that if presidential immunity were implicit, it would also protect the president from state prosecution. This is significant given Trump’s charges in Georgia for his actions to subvert the 2020 election results.
In a related development, a federal judge in New York upheld the E. Jean Carroll defamation verdict and $83 million damages award, denying Trump’s motion for a new trial. This adds to the legal challenges Trump faces, including four criminal cases.
Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted the historical importance of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, stating, “We’re writing a rule for the ages.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed this sentiment, noting the case’s future implications for the presidency and the country.
Special counsel attorney Michael Dreeben pushed back against claims that Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election were “official acts” as president. He argued that actions like creating a fake slate of electors were not part of a president’s job.
The Supreme Court’s decision could set up a process for a trial potentially months from now, after additional appeals court reviews. This could delay the trial until after the election, aligning with Trump’s strategy.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a striking moment, pushed back against conservative Justice Samuel Alito, emphasizing that the justice system has “layers and layers and layers of protection for accused defendants in the hopes that the innocent will go free.” She acknowledged that the system sometimes fails but stressed the importance of maintaining democratic principles.
As the Supreme Court prepares to announce its ruling, the nation awaits a decision that could redefine the limits of presidential immunity and accountability.
Source: ABC News, CNN
