The Supreme Court took cautious steps on Thursday In a landmark area of law that had never been faced before: whether former presidents enjoy “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution arising from the special counsel’s federal election interference case.
In a special court session that lasted more than two and a half hours, the justices appeared to be looking for a middle ground that would allow at least some of Trump’s broader claims to be rejected, while still clearly shielding future presidents from criminal activity. can be discounted – such as their role commander in chief,
The official question the judges are facing is: “Whether, and if so, to what extent is a former President entitled to presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged conduct in official acts during his term of office?”
Supreme Court lashes out at emergency room access to abortion in states’ rights challenge
In interesting arguments, a partisan divide quickly developed in the nine-member bench as it considered whether an executive’s personal conduct versus official duty in office could be subject to prosecution.
Trump was not present at the debate, but he spoke about the stakes while greeting supporters at a New York construction site. (Fox News)
Both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications for future presidents.
“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. “Once we say there is no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want, I’m concerned that we also have the problem of the President feeling obligated to follow the law while in office.” There will be a worse problem.”
Justice Samuel Alito asked, “If an incumbent who loses a very close, extremely tightly contested election 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 can do that.” “If there is a criminal prosecution by a bitter political rival, won’t that lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh summarized the risks regardless of the court’s rules: “It will have a huge impact on the presidency.”
Trump was not present during the debate, but talked about the risks while greeting supporters at a New York construction site.
US Supreme Court justices pose for their official portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022. Seated from left: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Associate Justice Elena Kagan, (standing in back from left) Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Olivier Doulieri/AFP via Getty Images)
“A president should have immunity,” he said Thursday morning. “If you don’t have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president, you don’t have any president.”
The underlying factor is timing – whether a quick decision by the court, which is expected in May or June, will allow any criminal trials to begin before the November presidential election. Depending on the outcome, jury selection may begin in late summer or early autumn, or the case may be delayed indefinitely or dismissed altogether.
Disagreement in Supreme Court over implementation of municipal homeless camping ban
The stakes could not be higher, both for the immediate political prospects and the long-term impact on the presidency and the rule of law.
As the presumptive GOP nominee recapture the white houseTrump is betting that his sweeping constitutional claims will get legal relief from the court’s 6-3 conservative majority — three of its members are appointed to the bench by the defendants themselves.
Former US President Donald Trump speaks during a 2024 election campaign rally in Waco, Texas on March 25, 2023. (Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images)
Special counsel Jack Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud 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 electoral vote count. January 6, 2021, US Capitol riot, Smith and several of his deputies attended the debate.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Trump pleaded innocent to all charges in August.
The case is Trump v. US (23-939).
