Supreme Court hears Trump’s immunity claim

On the final day of arguments in its current term, the Supreme Court will yet again consider a constitutional question stemming from the legal battles of former President Donald Trump. While he hoped to be in the room for the oral arguments, Trump is required to attend an ongoing criminal trial in New York over alleged hush money payments. The Supreme Court decision could dramatically alter the course of his campaign and his court cases for the rest of the year if the justices determine he has immunity from prosecution in one of his four pending cases.

What is the case about?

Special counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election and inciting the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Smith’s indictment, filed last year, claims Trump engaged in criminal conspiracies by attempting to defraud the country by claiming he won the election, obstructing certification of Biden’s win, and violating the right to vote and have a vote fairly counted. Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts and denies any wrongdoing. The trial is on hold until the Supreme Court decides whether Smith is allowed to prosecute a former president for actions committed while he was still in office. Two lower courts already rejected Trump’s immunity claims.

What is the constitutional question?

When the court agreed to hear the case, the justices said that they would answer the question, “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”

In a filing last month, Trump’s lawyers argued that no former or current president has faced charges for his official acts from 1789 to 2023 for good reason.

“The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” they wrote.

Smith’s team said that even though presidents should have some immunity, it should not extend to criminal activity. They also said Trump’s actions surrounding his reelection bid were private and not pursuant to his official duties.

“At the core of the charged conspiracies is a private scheme with private actors to achieve a private end: petitioner’s effort to remain in power by fraud,” Smith responded to Trump’s appeal.

What is the precedent?

In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Richard Nixon was immune from civil liability for actions during his time in office. In that case, a civilian Air Force analyst alleged he was unjustly fired. But the court has never determined whether that immunity extends to criminal matters. Trump’s legal counsel argues that presidents should be protected from prosecution based on their actions in office like Nixon was. Smith has pointed out that the 1982 decision differentiated between civil cases and federal criminal ones, so the Nixon precedent should not apply. A lower court agreed earlier this year with the Justice Department that a president does not have immunity after leaving office.

What will the result mean for Trump’s other lawsuits?

Although the justices have fast-tracked the arguments in this case, it’s later than Smith wanted. If they rule that Trump is subject to prosecution over the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot, it would be difficult to bring the case to trial before the November general election. If they rule that he is immune in this case, Trump could build on the precedent to argue for the dismissal of other cases that involve time in office: election interference and racketeering in Georgia, classified documents found in Florida, and hush money allegedly paid in New York after he won the 2016 election.

Even if the justices rule that Trump is not immune from prosecution, the decision is likely to give more specific guidance on when presidential immunity applies.

“This case may be rather maddening for the justices because it is surrounded by rather steep constitutional cliffs,” legal scholar Jonathan Turley told Fox News. “If the court goes one way, a president has little protection in carrying out the duties of his office. If they turned the other way, he has little accountability for the most serious criminal acts.”