Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump presidential immunity

Update, 12:52 p.m.

How did the justices respond to arguments? Justices questioned Trump attorney D. John Sauer on his reasoning about the limits of presidential immunity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether he was effectively arguing for the court to expand the reach of presidential immunity. Justice Elana Kagan wondered aloud whether a president could be protected from prosecution for official acts such as ordering a military coup. Sauer argued that the remedy for wrongful acts during a president’s time in office is impeachment, not criminal prosecution. Jackson pushed back, saying impeachment alone might not prevent presidents from committing criminal acts.

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben where he would place the limits of presidential immunity. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the U.S. Court of Appeals’ reasoning that, as Roberts described it, Trump can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted. Roberts asked whether the grand jury acted in good faith. Justice Samuel Alito asked if prosecutors could hypothetically bring political cases. Roberts also questioned how deeply the Court of Appeals examined the questions central to the case. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether courts should examine presidents’ supposed motivations for their actions. Dreeben said the prosecution did not refer to Trump’s motives.

Original post, 10:53 a.m.

Lawyers representing the former President’s case appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday morning to argue that he is immune from prosecution regarding the Capitol riots of January 6, 2021. Donald Trump was in New York for his trial on allegations that he paid hush money to a woman to suppress information about an alleged extramarital affair.

Case summary: Prosecutors have indicted Trump for allegedly seeking to obstruct an official proceeding and interfere with certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump has denied wrongdoing. He argues that he acted within the scope of his authority as president during the events of Jan. 6, including the Capitol riots. Prosecutors argue that presidential immunity does not extend to criminal acts he engaged in while in office. A court of appeals previously sided with prosecutors, ruling that they can prosecute Trump.

Dig deeper: Read Carolina Lumetta’s report in The Stew about what the Supreme Court’s decision in this case could mean.