Supreme Court The hearing is set to consider possibly the highest-profile cases Thursday to determine whether former President Trump can claim presidential immunity against criminal charges brought by Biden’s Justice Department.
Special Counsel Jack SmithThe plaintiffs, who filed charges against Trump following the investigation into the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot and Trump’s alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election results, argued in a brief submitted to the high court that “the President is not above the law.”
Trump’s legal team argued to the contrary, “Denying criminal immunity would incapacitate every future president…[T]he threat of future prosecution and imprisonment will become a political weapon to influence the most sensitive and controversial decisions.” , which will take away the power, authority and decisiveness of the presidency.”
Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while all nine justices may be skeptical of Trump’s blanket immunity claims, they could offer guidance on whether the president’s immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in the Oval Office would be valid. Where it ends up – that could have profound implications. Criminal cases against former President
Supreme Court ready to debate Trump’s immunity claim in election interference case
US Supreme Court justices will hear arguments in Trump v. United States on Thursday. (United States Supreme Court Archive via Getty Images)
Criminal defense attorney and George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital that the case is “surrounded by quite serious constitutional rocks.”
“This case could be quite troublesome for the judges because it is surrounded by steep constitutional cliffs. If the Court goes one way, the President has little protection in carrying out the duties of his office. If they go the other way, When they turn around, they face little accountability for the most serious criminal acts,” Turley said.
“This is a court that tends to be incremental. They don’t favor sweeping decisions,” he said.
The Justice Department argued to the lower court that the president has virtually no immunity when leaving office, and the lower court agreed.
Turley says the judge could “reject the lower court’s decision and send it back for a more nuanced look at constitutional immunity.”
“Judges may find that presidents require immunity even with respect to certain criminal acts,” Turley said, adding, “Any remand would work significantly in the former president’s favor at a strategic level.”
Turley explained that if the case is sent back to Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C. District Court, that process would make it “even less likely” to lead to a hearing before the November election.
“There are both constitutional and strategic aspects to the decision, but I think these judges may consider this argument with a view to balancing these interests, and if that is the case, they may take a different approach than the lower court.” Can come along or the former president,” Turley said.
Legal experts say Jack Smith’s runway to try Trump before 2024 election ‘just got too short’
The thrust of Trump’s legal argument is that Supreme Court precedent says former presidents enjoy complete immunity from civil liability for their official acts, and the same immunity should apply in the criminal context.
Jim Trusty, a former legal adviser to Trump and an attorney, said, “There is a real possibility that the Supreme Court will give some concrete guidance on the exact amount of security a president should receive.” former federal prosecutortold Fox News Digital.
He explained, “There will likely still be factual issues that lower courts will have to decide where President Trump’s actions fit on this continuum of protected or unprotected conduct.”
Former President Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith (Getty Images/File)
John Shue, a constitutional law expert who served in both the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations, offered a similar view.
“The chances that the Supreme Court will give some leeway to the office of the president are quite good,” Xu told Fox News Digital.
But Xu also said, “There’s also a good chance that whatever immunity the court grants will not cover Trump’s alleged actions.”
Red State AGS blast special counsel pressures SCOTUS to hush up Trump case: ‘Partisan interest’
former president trump (Win McNamee/Getty Images/File)
“They will make not only purely legal arguments, but also political power arguments, and they have to get at least five Supreme Court justices to agree with them,” Xu said.
The trustee said the questions asked of each side at Thursday’s oral arguments “may be quite transparent with respect to each judge’s view of immunity.”
Until now, Xu observed, Trump’s lawyers have argued that the president has absolute immunity for any and all actions, even after leaving office.
“I don’t think the court will go that far,” Xu said.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Similarly, Trusty said he expected the court “to give little credence to the notion of absolutely unlimited immunity, as President Trump’s lawyers have argued.”
“But I think there is a strong possibility that the Court affirms the notion that immunity protects the President and that their decision could lead to the eventual dismissal of the January 6, Mar-a-Lago, and Georgia cases,” They said. ,
The Supreme Court will hear the Trump vs. United States case at 10 a.m. Thursday
The Justice Department declined to comment.
“Without immunity for official acts, there can be no presidency. No president has ever faced prosecution for official acts in American history,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. “
“Allowing a President’s political opponents to prosecute him after he leaves office will distort the President’s most important decisions. Even during his presidency, his enemies will blackmail him and create chaos when his term ends. The framers of our Constitution wisely created a system that prevented this endless, destructive cycle of accusations for 234 years,” he added.
“The Supreme Court must uphold presidential immunity and put an end to Jack Smith’s deranged, unconstitutional conspiracy against President Trump once and for all,” he said.
