After a marathon debate over whether former President Donald Trump should be granted presidential immunity for crimes alleged by special counsel Jack Smith, legal experts told Fox News Digital that most Supreme Court judges appeared There are concerns about what impact this decision will have on the future functioning of the executive branch.
In nearly three hours of arguments on Thursday, the high court grappled with the question: “Whether and if so, to what extent a former President is immune from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during his term of office.” Is received.”
However, it appears the majority were not sold on the idea of blanket immunity, legal experts told Fox News Digital It may determine that TrumpAnd any future former president should be provided with a worthy version of it.
“I think the court recognizes that it would be a dangerous precedent if future presidents could prosecute their political rivals,” former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich told Fox News Digital.
The Supreme Court is seen in Washington on March 7, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Brnovich said, “They will establish a limited doctrine because, under the prosecutor’s doctrine, future prosecutors will have great power to persecute their political rivals.”
During the questioning, the judges appeared generally divided along ideological lines.
“If the possibility of criminal liability were removed, would there not be a significant risk that future presidents would be encouraged to openly commit crimes while in office?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked in conversation with Trump’s attorney, John Sawyer.
“Once we say, ‘No criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want.’ I’m worried that we’ll have a worse problem than the president feeling obligated to follow the law while he’s in office,” Jackson said.
LIVE UPDATES: Trump’s New York trial testimony resumes, Supreme Court hears immunity arguments
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
In contrast, Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether limiting immunity for former presidents would send the country into an unstable spiral.
“If an incumbent who loses an election in a very close, extremely tight race knows that the real possibility after leaving office is not that the President will be able to go into peaceful retirement, but that the President will be subject to a bitter criminal prosecution Political rivalries, wouldn’t this lead us into a cycle that would destabilize the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we saw this process. Where the loser goes to jail,” Alito remarked.
“Were write a rule For ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said later.
Republican presidential candidate, former US President Donald Trump addresses supporters at the conclusion of a campaign rally at Atkinson Country Club in Atkinson, New Hampshire on January 16, 2024. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
John Shue, a constitutional scholar and former official in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital that the justices indicated that “they believe this case is not really about Trump. It’s about the office of the president.” It’s about what future presidents might do, and whether they will be prosecuted for their choices.”
“This is a very important issue and the Biden administration has set a very bad precedent by taking action against not only a former president, but an individual who is challenging Biden’s re-election,” he said.
He said, “What the Biden administration has done here gives a terrible image of retribution, and at the international or foreign policy level, it looks to us like another banana republic that we normally expect to prosecute our political opponents or Criticize him for trying to put him in jail.” ,
Xu said that “many judges probably find what Trump did after the 2020 election distasteful.”
“But they also seem uneasy about giving complete relaxation on one side or no relaxation at all on the other side. As is often the case, the middle ground is where the discussion will take place,” he said.
John Yu, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said Trump’s argument “had more success than many people watching the court expected.”
Click here to get the Fox News app
Yu said, “Only three liberal justices rejected the idea of immunity outright. Six conservative justices recognized the need to prevent future presidents from criminalizing policy and constitutional differences with their predecessors.”
He said one possible outcome could be for the justices to send the question back to lower courts and ask them to determine whether Trump’s actions amount to “official” or “private” actions before they rule. Decide whether the exemption extends to official acts.
A verdict in the case is expected early this summer.
Fox News Digital contacted the special counsel’s office for comment.
Fox News’ Bill Mears and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.
