The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing in September on whether legislation is needed to limit the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which said former President Donald Trump had some immunity for his conduct in trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill, who chairs the committee, announced that the hearing would look into the legal and political ramifications of the decision. The exact date for the hearing has not yet been set.
“During this upcoming hearing, we will examine the breadth of future misconduct that may be immunized from prosecution, consider the unprecedented nature of this immunity in American history, and discuss legislative solutions to the dangers of this decision,” he said in a statement.
Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he was considering a legislative response to the decision.
In the ruling, which fell 6-3 along ideological lines with most conservative justices, the Supreme Court said for the first time that former presidents have some criminal immunity for acts committed while in office.
The court ruled that certain fundamental presidential functions are completely protected, while other so-called “official acts” are also presumed subject to immunity. Only unofficial acts are not subject to any immunity.
The decision has faced considerable criticism, including from legal scholars who accused the conservative justices of abandoning their stated confidence in the text of the Constitution and its original meaning.
It also raised concerns that future presidents were given a roadmap on how to avoid criminal exposure.
“This dangerous decision immunizes presidents who commit crimes, no matter how serious, as long as they claim that their crimes were ‘official acts,’” Durbin added.
In Trump’s case, arising from the Washington election interference case, the court said some of his conduct was off limits, but prosecutors have the opportunity to argue that some of his official acts are not protected. Trump’s lawyers have previously admitted that at least some of the actions alleged in the indictment are not subject to immunity.
The Supreme Court’s decision also endangered the possibility of Trump’s trial taking place before the November presidential elections.
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
