The nation is bracing for a high-stakes Supreme Court ruling, which could come as soon as this week, based on former President Trump’s arguments that he is immune from prosecution as former commander in chief.
The case could have a significant impact on how former presidents can be held accountable for any criminal actions they commit while in office, and is among 14 cases the court has yet to decide this term.
While it’s possible the decision could be delayed until early July, a decision this week would fall flat as the first presidential debate is scheduled for Thursday and just weeks before the Republican Party convention in Milwaukee.
What is the Supreme Court considering?
The case comes out of the high court considering the extent to which presidential immunity can protect a former executive from conduct during his term.
Trump, during April arguments, asked the court to adopt a sweeping immunity argument, asserting that a president has absolute immunity for official acts while in office, and that this immunity applies after leaving office. He and his lawyer argue the protections cover his efforts to stop the transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election.
Special Counsel Jack Smith argued that only sitting presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution and that the broad scope proposed by Trump would give a free pass for criminal conduct.
What are the risks of the case?
It seems unlikely that the court will take the case to the logical extreme that ordering the murder of a political rival could be covered by presidential immunity — something Trump’s team argued in court would likely be protected.
It’s clear that the justices considered the far-reaching implications of Trump’s broad immunity because, during oral arguments, they hypothesized about cases in which a president accepts bribes to appoint an ambassador or even sells nuclear secrets.
“I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is to turn the Oval Office into, you know, the headquarters of criminal activity in this country,” Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said at the time.
Trump’s team argued that the only way a president can be prosecuted for crimes is if he is first tried and convicted through impeachment. It is the opposite of the position taken by Trump’s lawyers when he faced impeachment on January 6, arguing then that the matter should be left to the justice system.
The court is more likely to seek to present a more nuanced approach — one in which former presidents can be prosecuted for “private conduct” while enjoying immunity for actions considered fundamental to their responsibilities in office.
“The question is — as we explored a little here today — how to separate private conduct from official conduct that may or may not enjoy some immunity,” Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the court’s six conservatives, said in April. .
What did previous judges rule?
Lower courts rejected Trump’s arguments, with the former president losing two related challenges.
“Regardless of the immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifetime ‘get out of jail free’ pass. Former presidents do not enjoy special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” wrote U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, in a December ruling.
“The defendant’s four years of service as Commander-in-Chief did not confer upon him the divine right of kings to escape the criminal responsibility that governs his fellow citizens,” she added in her decision.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals similarly rejected Trump’s challenge.
“For the purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump became a Trump citizen, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the court ruled through a three-judge panel.
“But any executive immunity that may have protected him while serving as president no longer protects him against this charge.”
How will this affect Trump’s January 6 indictment?
It appears unlikely that the justices will set aside any case against Trump, as the former president has called for.
But depending on how the court analyzes the limits of official actions, the decision could consume considerably more of the court’s time.
It is possible that the Supreme Court will achieve some immunity for former presidents, while also ruling that none of Trump’s actions to remain in power can be considered an official act.
But the court could also decide to return the matter to a lower court, providing guidance to Chutkan and asking him to reconsider whether any of Trump’s behavior meets its test for what constitutes presidential actions deserving of immunity.
If the court goes this route, Trump could appeal, which could have the potential to refer the issue back to the Supreme Court.
How will this affect Trump’s other cases?
Trump has made similar arguments in the other trials he faces.
Siding with Trump, even in a narrow ruling, could force courts to spend more time weighing the issue. This could benefit Trump, who has tried to delay his trials. If he wins the presidency, he could order the Justice Department to drop federal cases against him.
And if the court agreed with Trump’s broad view of immunity, it could overturn his Manhattan hush-money conviction — which he has pledged to appeal — as well as his ongoing election interference lawsuit in Georgia.
However, in their Mar-a-Lago documents case, prosecutors argued that presidential immunity has little bearing on the case.
Prosecutors argued that Trump took the documents after leaving office, suggesting that presidential immunity would not apply.
But even beyond withholding the records, prosecutors note that other matters in the case happened well after Trump left the Oval Office, including withholding records from his lawyer as well as from law enforcement — something he was able to do by directing his co-defendants to move boxes around your property.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
