The Supreme Court is poised to make a significant ruling on Monday regarding former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, which he argues should shield him from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. This high-profile case has been left for the court’s final decision day before the summer break, marking the last case argued this term. Alongside this, the court will also address three other cases, including two related to Republican-backed state laws regulating social media platforms and another concerning when companies can challenge federal agency rule-making.
On Friday, the court issued a ruling in a separate case related to January 6 criminal prosecutions, but this narrow decision is unlikely to impact Trump’s criminal case significantly. Trump was charged by special counsel Jack Smith in August 2023 with participating in three criminal conspiracies: to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to obstruct the electoral vote process; to impede the January 6 congressional proceeding where the election results were counted and certified; and to work against the right to vote and have that vote counted. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges, asserting that the prosecution is politically motivated and orchestrated by his opponents to hinder his bid to return to power.
Trump has sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that his actions, taken while he was president, fall under “absolute immunity” and should be protected as official acts. The special counsel’s office has countered that these actions are subject to scrutiny by the criminal justice system. During oral arguments, the court hinted it might send the case back to a lower court for evidentiary hearings to determine whether Trump’s actions fall under official acts, a move that could delay the case from reaching a jury before the November election.
In a separate case, Trump was convicted by a New York jury in May on charges of falsifying business documents related to hush money payments to a porn star during the final days of the 2016 election. He is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. Trump also faces charges in two other pending cases, including one brought by Smith concerning classified documents taken from his possession after leaving office. Additionally, Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis has charged him in connection with efforts to overturn the 2020 election, though this case has been delayed by accusations regarding her relationship with a prosecutor she hired.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday will be the last of its term, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the final opinions on Friday. The case centers on Trump’s attempts to dismiss charges against him, with lower courts finding he cannot claim immunity for actions that allegedly sought to interfere with the election results. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been charged in federal court in Washington with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, one of three criminal cases he still faces.
During oral arguments earlier this year, a majority of the justices did not appear to support the claim of absolute immunity that would halt special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump. However, several conservative justices indicated they might limit when former presidents could be prosecuted, suggesting the case could be sent back to lower courts before any trial begins.
Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, argued that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for their official acts, warning that politically motivated prosecutions could become routine and hinder presidents from functioning effectively. Lower courts have rejected these arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, D.C.
Several justices focused on defining what constitutes an official act and whether charges based on such acts should be dismissed. Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether a former president could escape prosecution for ordering a coup or selling nuclear secrets, while Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about indictments for actions like receiving bribes in exchange for appointments.
Smith’s team argues that the Constitution’s framers never intended for presidents to be above the law and that Trump’s actions, such as participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden, are not part of a president’s official duties. Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records, a case that played out during his presidency and involved a criminal investigation but no charges.
The case also involves controversy surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas, who has faced calls to recuse himself due to his wife, Ginni Thomas, urging the reversal of the 2020 election results and attending the rally preceding the Capitol riot.
During more than two-and-a-half hours of oral argument, some conservative justices expressed concern about the potential for federal criminal laws to target political opponents if former presidents do not have immunity. However, they left open the possibility that Trump’s trial could proceed based on his private conduct rather than official acts. The timing of the court’s decision and the resulting trial remains unclear, potentially pushing Trump’s trial past the November election.
Representing Trump, John Sauer argued that without presidential immunity from criminal charges, the presidency would be fundamentally changed, with the looming threat of prosecution destroying presidential decision-making. He suggested that the court’s decision would have far-reaching implications beyond Trump’s case, potentially affecting future presidents.
Michael Dreeben, representing the United States, emphasized that the Supreme Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. He argued that Trump seeks permanent criminal immunity for a president’s official acts unless first impeached and convicted by the Senate. Several justices pressed Sauer on distinguishing between official and private acts, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan posing hypothetical scenarios to clarify the boundaries.
Justice Neil Gorsuch noted some common ground between the two sides, suggesting further proceedings to separate private and official conduct. However, Roberts questioned the practicality of such distinctions, likening it to a “one-legged stool.”
Dreeben contended that even if presidents have immunity for official acts, the federal government could still introduce evidence of Trump’s interactions with the Department of Justice. He maintained that there was enough private conduct to allow the charges against Trump to proceed.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledged the difficulty in distinguishing between official and private conduct but suggested that if a president’s official acts are not entitled to absolute immunity, the problem is eliminated. Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared sympathetic to the argument that criminal statutes do not apply to the president unless specified, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett was less persuaded, questioning the implications of Trump’s theory.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this case will set a new standard for presidential power and determine whether Trump stands trial for his actions following the 2020 election.
Source: NBC News, ABC News, SCOTUSblog
