Wa president orders the assassination of a political rival and avoids criminal prosecution? What if he sold nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary or staged a coup?
These are some of the hypothetical questions posed during oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Thursday, as the justices wrestled with the practical implications of what might happen if they granted former President Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution in the prosecutor’s election interference case. special Jack Smith against him. .
“This case has enormous implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
During almost three hours of discussions in Trump v. U.SSupreme Court justices have raised concerns about the broad implications for future presidents depending on how they rule in this historic case of presidential power, often avoiding discussing the specific allegations against Trump.
“We are writing a forever rule,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Many of the justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s lawyer’s argument that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts related to the presidency. This, they suggested, could violate the fundamental legal principle that no one is above the law and could turn the Oval Office into the “seat of criminal activity,” as Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson called it. She argued, in a line of questioning, that presidents would have no incentive to follow the law they are required to uphold if the Supreme Court granted them immunity from criminal prosecution. “I think we would have a really significant opposite problem if…someone with that kind of power, the most powerful person in the world and with the greatest authority, could take office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. ,” Jackson said.
Justice Elena Kagan presented hypothetical scenarios in which a president ordered his military to conduct a coup or sell nuclear secrets to a hostile power abroad. Trump lawyer D. John Sauer argued that the president could not be held criminally responsible for these actions unless he was first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. “That sure looks bad, doesn’t it?” Kagan responded.
However, the justices were also concerned about the practical effects of the government’s argument that a president is not immune from such criminal liability. Justice Samuel Alito noted that a president is in a “peculiarly precarious position” given the high-stakes decisions he has to make and the enormous amount of power he wields, and Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch raised the specter of overzealous prosecutors targeting former presidents after they leave office. “I am not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives,” Gorsuch said. He raised a hypothetical scenario in which a President organized a peaceful civil rights protest outside the Capitol that inadvertently delayed legislative work and could be held criminally liable for that action. The justices and Sauer also discussed whether the threat of criminal prosecution could restrict a president’s decision-making or ability to govern.
At the heart of Trump’s argument before the Supreme Court was the fact that his actions after the 2020 election fell within official conduct that should be protected, rather than private actions, which all parties agree do not enjoy criminal immunity.
If the Supreme Court concludes that there is at least some presidential immunity, the question that follows is where to draw the line between official and private actions — and what category Trump’s actions in the Smith case fall into.
In response to questioning from Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who seemed cautious about granting absolute immunity, Sauer admitted that some of the allegations against Trump in the indictment are in fact “private” acts. Michael Dreeben, arguing on behalf of the government, said that even if the Supreme Court finds some presidential immunity, Smith’s case could move forward against Trump with charges that amount to “private” actions, including his alleged involvement in the fake voter scheme.
The high court’s ruling — and how quickly it comes — will help determine whether Trump goes to trial in his case in Washington, D.C. before the November election.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked a series of questions suggesting he is skeptical of the appeals court ruling earlier this year that found Trump did not have immunity. He raised the possibility of sending the case back to the appeals court to determine whether some of Trump’s actions are immune from prosecution, which would further delay the trial. “Why shouldn’t we send it back to the appeals court?” Roberts asked Dreeben. “What concerns me is that, as you know, the appeals court did not consider what acts we are talking about or what documents we are talking about.”
The ministers have already been criticized for the delay in accepting Trump’s appeal, waiting until the last day of the mandate for oral arguments. Some legal experts viewed the delay as a victory for Trump, potentially jeopardizing the possibility of a trial before the next election.
“The fact that the Court has now taken up this case makes it extremely unlikely that the former President will be tried for his crimes on January 6, before the November 2024 elections,” says J. Michael Luttig, former US Court of Appeals Judge. USA and assistant. attorney general under George HW Bush. “Of course, the Court can decide cases quickly when necessary. I could hear this case tomorrow and could easily issue an opinion a week later. This will not happen. The Court has practically told us and assured us that this will not happen.”
The Washington election case is one of four criminal cases Trump faces as he challenges President Joe Biden for re-election. The Supreme Court’s ruling will almost certainly apply to Trump’s other federal cases in Florida and Georgia, where he also faces the prospect of criminal prosecution if the justices rule against his offer of immunity. (This will not affect his New York silence case, which does not concern official actions Trump took while president.)
The immunity case has increased pressure on the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three Trump-nominated justices. Last month, the court gave Trump a boost in the election year when it ruled that Colorado could not kick him off the ballot.
Trump took to social media on Thursday morning to repeat the arguments in his court document, alleging that, by denying immunity to a president, he would be subject to “extortion” by political opponents. “If a president does not have IMMUNITY, he/she will be nothing more than a ‘ceremonial’ president, rarely having the courage to do what needs to be done for our country,” Trump wrote.
Trump’s legal team frequently cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling:Nixon v.—which recognized absolute immunity from civil suits for presidents. But a federal appeals court had previously rejected Trump’s immunity request, saying that as a private citizen he is not protected from criminal attacks. accusation as he did during his presidency.
Originally, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had scheduled Trump’s trial in the Smith case to begin March 4, but Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in a delay in proceedings, paving the way for his money case secret in New York was the first to come to trial.
The Washington, D.C. federal indictment charges Trump with four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, and two other counts related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, culminating in the Capitol riot on March 6. January. 2021. Prosecutors allege that Trump participated in a conspiracy to send false election certificates to Congress, with the aim of invalidating Biden’s victory. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
This story originally appeared on Time.com read the full story
