What may be the most closely watched case in the Supreme Court this term — involving the highest-profile appellee — former President Donald Trump has presented a comprehensive argument Why he should not face trial for alleged election interference.
The high court will debate on Thursday morning what could determine the former president’s personal and political future. As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his constitutional claims will get legal relief from the court’s 6-3 conservative majority — three of its members will be appointed to the bench by the defendants themselves. .
The official question the judges will consider is: Whether, and if so, to what extent is a former President entitled to presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving alleged official acts during his term of office?
A court sketch shows the second day of former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan Criminal Court on Tuesday, April 16, 2024. (Christine Cornell)
This is new territory for Supreme Court and the country. No current or former president has ever been criminally charged.
The stakes could not be higher – for the immediate electoral prospects, and also for the long-term impact on the presidency and the rule of law. But this will be the second time in this term that the High Court will directly hear a case related to the former President.
Trump hush money trial enters second day
On March 4, the justices ruled unanimously that Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot over claims of insurrection in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
The decision to intervene at this stage in the immunity dispute is a mixed bag for both Trump and the special counsel. The defendants wanted to further delay the process – ideally before the November election – and Jack Smith wanted the High Court appeal dismissed immediately so that any litigation could get back on track quickly.
A federal appeals court had unanimously ruled against Trump on the immunity question.
“For purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump becomes Citizen Trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the three-judge panel wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him from this prosecution.”
logic
Smith has accused the former president of conspiring to betray the United States; Conspiracy to obstruct any official proceeding; Obstructing or attempting to obstruct any official proceeding; And conspiracy against rights.
The charges stem from Smith’s investigation into Trump’s alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election results, including participating in a scheme to disrupt the counting of electoral votes. January 6, 2021, US Capitol riot,
Trump pleaded innocent to all charges in August.
In his brief on the merits submitted this month, the special counsel told the high court that “the President is not above the law.”
“The Framers never supported criminal immunity for a former president, and every president from the Founding to the modern era has known that they faced potential criminal liability for official acts after leaving office,” the government said. “
But Trump’s legal team told the high court, “Denying criminal immunity would virtually incapacitate every future president from blackmail and extortion while in office, and leave them culpable for the trauma of years in office at the hands of political opponents.” Will be held.”
His lawyers said: “The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment will become a political weapon to influence the most sensitive and controversial presidential decisions, taking away the power, authority and decisiveness of the presidency.”
In a series of endorsement briefings, 19 GOP-controlled states and more than two dozen Republican members of Congress were among those endorsing Trump’s legal positions.
Former President Donald Trump attends the first day of his trial in Manhattan Criminal Court on April 15, 2024 in New York City. (Angela Weiss/AFP via AP, Pool)
constitutional concerns
The court will have to consider some issues:
Can a former president ever be prosecuted for “official acts”, or does he enjoy “absolute immunity”?
By including the words “whether and to what extent” in its official question framing the case, the Supreme Court – in the eyes of many legal scholars – may have been willing to limit or at least limit “absolute immunity” in this case. Could.
But the court’s precedent may give Trump some protection — that former presidents should not face civil liability “by virtue of their official acts” (fitzgerald vs nixon, 1982). Of course, Trump is facing criminal charges brought by the government. The question remains: will the Court now provide any inherent civil defense to criminal prosecution?
What is the official function of the President? Will the court distinguish between Trump’s alleged election interference while clearly acting in his executive capacity, or whether he was acting in a purely political or personal capacity as an outgoing candidate?
A federal appeals court rejected Trump’s arguments separate civil suit Alleging that he incited the violent Capitol mob with his “Stop the Steal” rally remarks on January 6, 2021, concluding that “his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act.” Trump is claiming the same immunity in those pending lawsuits.
In a separate 2020 case involving Trump’s financial records sought by New York prosecutors, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “This Court has recognized complete immunity for the President from ‘damage liability based on his official acts,’ but we have Complete exemption from has been rejected.” “Action for Unofficial Conduct of the President.”
Thomas cited 1997 clinton vs jones Case, which determined that a sitting President was not immune from civil suits over conduct conducted before and unrelated to his office. Again, the current dispute involves a criminal trial, and the judge may consider whether it deserves greater deference to the constitutional claims of both sides.
What functions are within the extraterritorial scope of the constitutional duties of the President?
The lower federal courts that decided the case apparently avoided addressing that issue, but the high court now has full discretion to take it up. When evaluating political or “discretionary” acts versus duty-bound or “ministerial” acts, bench questions or hypotheticals may provide clues about how broadly the justices wish to explore the class of presidential authority.
During oral arguments in January before a D.C.-based federal appeals court, Trump’s attorney, John Sawyer, suggested that if a president ordered SEAL Team Six military commandos to assassinate a political opponent, he could be criminally prosecuted. Can be tried if found guilty for the first time. Congress through the impeachment process.
Given the stakes, the Supreme Court could compromise here and issue a hybrid decision: rejecting Trump’s sweeping immunity claims while preserving some key executive functions, such as the national security role of commander-in-chief. The big unknown is which side Trump’s election-related conduct will rank in the eyes of the nine justices.
Do federal courts have any jurisdiction to consider official discretionary decisions of the President?
On this question of separation of powers, Smith’s team and others have cited 1952 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer A case that limited the president’s power to seize private property – even in a wartime emergency – lacking any express congressional authorization. That landmark decision curbing executive power also reaffirmed the judiciary’s binding role in reviewing the president’s actions in office.
Will the Supreme Court not ultimately decide? To decide and throw competition issues back to lower courts for further review?
Judges may find buyer’s remorse and conclude that important questions were not fully considered at the intermediate appellate or trial court level. This can cause significant delay in any test.
Or they may let the trial go on first, and give both sides a chance to present their claims to a jury. Depending on the decision, the Supreme Court will likely revisit the immunity questions.
Despite Trump’s insistence, the court apparently chose not to address another pending issue: whether criminal prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment’s ban on “double jeopardy”, because of his second impeachment by the Senate in February 2021. He was later acquitted of election sabotage.
next steps
trump faces criminal charges He faces a federal case in three other jurisdictions: over alleged misuse of classified documents while in office; the Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state’s 2020 voting procedures; and a New York fraud case involving an alleged hush money payment to an adult film star in 2016.
Jury selection in the New York case began on April 15.
But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Depending on court rules, the proceedings may not begin until late this summer, early fall, or perhaps much later.
Pardoned juror reveals selection process for Trump’s hush money trial: ‘I’m not a fan’
There’s another factor to consider: Trump could win re-election and then, upon taking office, order his attorney general to dismiss the special counsel and all of his cases. Neither side’s legal team has yet publicly speculated on that scenario.
Therefore, Jack Smith’s case is currently on hold.
And while this appeal would normally be decided at the end of the court’s term at the end of June, it is being expedited – so that a decision can come sooner.
Donald Trump and Jack Smith (Getty Images)
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government, the trial court will be “un-paused” – meaning that all discovery and pre-trial intrigue that has been paused will resume.
Trump’s team will likely argue to trial judge Tanya Chutkan that he will need at least several months from that point to actually prepare for a jury trial.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Chutkan said in December that while the case is pending in the Supreme Court, it does not have jurisdiction over it and he stayed the case against him until the judge decides on the merits of the case. Give.
A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean that his election interference prosecution would fail, and his other pending criminal and civil cases could be put on hold.
But for now, Trump has won a short-term victory, even if he ultimately loses before the Supreme Court — delaying any trial indefinitely that could last well past Election Day on November 5.
