In a significant legal discussion, several Supreme Court justices expressed alignment with the notion that presidential immunity might extend beyond their tenure in office. According to claims by Special Counsel Jack Smith, this issue came to light during oral arguments on whether 45th President Donald Trump could be held accountable for alleged efforts to alter the outcome of the 2020 election.
The initial ruling by a federal trial court, which favored Smith, declared that Trump could indeed face prosecution. However, the progression of this case in Washington, D.C., has been paused while awaiting a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court, expected by the end of June.
During the deliberations, it emerged that a majority of the justices might support some form of post-presidency immunity, although the exact parameters of this immunity remain to be defined. If the Court decides to establish a specific standard, it could overturn the lower court’s ruling that former presidents are completely devoid of immunity, thus returning the case for a detailed examination of each individual fact to ascertain the existence of immunity.
This detailed process might extend over several months. Moreover, any decision made by the Supreme Court on this matter is likely to be subject to further appeals.
The implications of such a ruling could potentially delay any final decision on Trump’s trial in D.C. until after the presidential election on November 5, 2024, which could be a significant setback for Smith and President Joe Biden, who will be contesting against Trump in that election.
The justices considered various hypothetical situations in which a former president might face legal charges. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the possibility of a president participating in a mostly peaceful civil rights protest that disrupts an official proceeding. In response, Michael Dreeben, representing the government, suggested that such actions might not fall within the core responsibilities of a president.
Further inquiries were made about whether the role of the presidency could be undermined if former presidents were open to criminal prosecution for their actions while in office. Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern over the precariousness of a president’s position, given the nature and impact of their decisions. Dreeben emphasized that a president is well-informed legally about their actions, suggesting that mere mistakes do not typically lead to criminal charges.
Alito, however, appeared skeptical of Dreeben’s assurance that the legal safeguards would prevent unjust indictments, alluding to the ease of obtaining indictments in some cases.
The discussions appeared favorable to Trump, though it remains unclear whether a conclusive majority supports a specific type of immunity that could decisively halt the ongoing prosecution.
The case, known as Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, continues to be deliberated by the Supreme Court, with some liberal justices also showing openness to the idea of some enduring presidential immunity.
Thinking out loud here, but I keep reading about immunity for “former presidents.” Trump was CURRENTLY president when the Jan 6 protests happened, was he not? The new president was not sworn in until approximately 2 weeks AFTER those events? So why the discussion of “former presidents?”
Also, I think, based on the info he was given, he believed there was cheating going on and had the right/responsibility to do what as necessary to check that out…….