This
artist
sketch
depicts
former
President
Donald
Trump’s
attorney
John
Sauer
(far
right)
speaking
before
the
Supreme
Court on
Capitol
Hill on
Thursday
April
25,
2025. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Supreme
Court's
conservative
justices
signaled
support
on
Thursday
for U.S.
presidents
having
some
level of
protection
The
Supreme
Court's
conservative
justices
signaled
support
on
Thursday
for U.S.
presidents
having
some
level of
protection
from
criminal
charges
for
certain
acts
taken in
office
as it
tackled
Donald
Trump's
claim of
immunity
from
prosecution
for
trying
to undo
his 2020
election
loss.
During
about
2-1/2
hours of
arguments
in the
case,
most of
the
justices
seemed
unlikely
to
embrace
Trump's
most
far-reaching
argument
that
presidents
have
"absolute
immunity"
for
official
acts -
an
assertion
that
appeared
to wilt
under
hypothetical
questions
involving
selling
nuclear
secrets,
taking a
bribe or
ordering
a coup
or
political
assassination.
But the
conservative
justices,
who hold
a 6-3
majority
on the
nation's
top
judicial
body,
indicated
concern
about
presidents
lacking
any
degree
of
immunity,
especially
for less
egregious
acts.
The
contours
of such
a
ruling,
though,
were not
clear
after
arguments
probing
the
extent
of
presidential
powers.
Trump,
seeking
this
year to
regain
the
White
House,
appealed
after
lower
courts
rejected
his
request
to be
shielded
from
four
election-related
criminal
charges
on the
grounds
that he
was
serving
as
president
when he
took the
actions
that led
to the
indictment
obtained
by
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith.
The
Supreme
Court's
eventual
ruling
may
narrow
the
special
counsel's
allegations
against
Trump,
but it
appeared
that at
least
parts of
the
indictment
would
survive.
The
decision
could
further
delay
Trump's
trial,
however,
if the
Supreme
Court
instructs
lower
courts
to
determine
how to
apply
its
newly
formulated
view of
immunity.
Smith
attended
the
arguments.
Conservative
Justice
Samuel
Alito
said
incumbent
presidents
who lose
re-election
would be
in a
"peculiarly
precarious
position"
if they
are
vulnerable
to
vindictive
prosecution
by the
next
presidential
administration.
"Will
that not
lead us
into a
cycle
that
destabilizes
the
functioning
of our
country
as a
democracy?"
Alito
asked
Michael
Dreeben,
the
lawyer
representing
Smith.
"We can
look
around
the
world
and find
countries
where we
have
seen
this
process
where
the
loser
gets
thrown
in
jail,"
Alito
added.
Conservative
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
signaled
concern
about
abusive
prosecutions
of
presidents,
absent
immunity.
"You
know how
easy it
is in
many
cases
for a
prosecutor
to get a
grand
jury to
bring an
indictment.
And
reliance
on the
good
faith of
the
prosecutor
may not
be
enough
in some
cases,"
Roberts
told
Dreeben,
while
indicating
he was
not
suggesting
Trump's
indictment
in this
case was
improper.
Trump,
the
Republican
candidate
challenging
Democratic
President
Joe
Biden in
the Nov.
5
election
in a
rematch
from
four
years
ago, is
the
first
former
U.S.
president
to be
criminally
prosecuted.
He has
pleaded
not
guilty
in this
case and
in three
other
criminal
cases,
including
an
ongoing
trial on
New York
state
charges
related
to hush
money
paid to
a porn
star
shortly
before
the 2016
U.S.
election
that
made him
president.
Trump
did not
attend
the
arguments
because
he was
in a
Manhattan
courtroom
in the
hush
money
case.
'WHAT
WAS THAT
ABOUT?'
D. John
Sauer,
the
lawyer
arguing
for
Trump,
said
that
without
presidential
immunity
from
criminal
prosecution,
"there
can be
no
presidency
as we
know
it."
"For 234
years of
American
history,
no
president
was ever
prosecuted
for his
official
acts,"
Sauer
added.
Liberal
Justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
pushed
back on
Sauer's
argument
in a
question
about
President
Gerald
Ford's
pardon
of
Richard
Nixon
following
Nixon's
1974
resignation
amid the
Watergate
political
scandal.
"If
everybody
thought
that
presidents
couldn't
be
prosecuted,"
Jackson
asked,
"then
what was
that
about?"
Sauer
was
sharply
questioned
by the
court's
liberals
as he
advanced
his
sweeping
theory
that
presidents
enjoy
"absolute
immunity"
for acts
taken in
their
official
capacity.
Jackson
suggested
such
blanket
immunity
risked
"turning
the Oval
Office
into the
seat of
criminal
activity
in this
country."
In
response
questions
by
liberal
Justice
Elena
Kagan,
Sauer
said
that if
structured
as
official
acts a
president
could
not be
prosecuted
for
selling
nuclear
secrets
to a
foreign
adversary,
or even
if he
ordered
the
military
to stage
a coup
in order
to
retain
power,
unless
first
impeached
and
removed
from
office
by
Congress.
"That
sure
sounds
bad,
doesn't
it?"
Kagan
responded.
BACK TO
LOWER
COURTS
The
conservative
justices
appeared
to favor
returning
the case
to lower
courts
to
perform
more
analysis.
They
asked
questions
about
which of
Trump's
actions
cited by
the
prosecution
were
taken in
an
official
capacity,
as
opposed
to a
private
one -
and if
an
official
capacity,
which of
those
acts may
deserve
some
immunity.
Such a
ruling
could
further
delay
Trump's
trial if
lower
courts
must
perform
a
rigorous
probe.
The
Supreme
Court's
decision
to put
off
hearing
arguments
over
immunity
until
this
month,
months
after
lower
courts
acted,
already
postponed
Trump's
trial,
which
had been
scheduled
for
March.
Legal
experts
have
said a
ruling
would be
needed
by about
June 1
for
Trump's
trial to
be held
before
the
election.
If Trump
regains
the
presidency,
he could
try to
force an
end to
the
prosecution
or
potentially
pardon
himself
for any
federal
crimes.
On his
way into
court in
New York
on
Thursday,
Trump
told
reporters,
"If you
don't
have
immunity,
you're
not
going to
do
anything.
You're
just
going to
become a
ceremonial
president."
The
court
already
this
year has
handed
Trump
one
major
victory.
On March
4, it
overturned
a
judicial
decision
that had
excluded
him from
Colorado's
ballot
under a
constitutional
provision
involving
insurrection
for
inciting
and
supporting
the Jan.
6, 2021,
attack
on the
U.S.
Capitol
by his
supporters.
Not
since
its
landmark
Bush v.
Gore
decision,
which
handed
the
disputed
2000
U.S.
election
to
Republican
George
W. Bush
over
Democrat
Al Gore,
has the
court
played
such an
integral
role in
a
presidential
race.
Trump
took
numerous
steps to
try to
reverse
his 2020
loss to
Biden.
His
false
claims
of
widespread
voting
fraud
helped
inspire
the
Capitol
rampage
on the
day
Congress
met to
certify
Biden's
victory.
His
supporters
attacked
police
and
stormed
the
Capitol,
sending
lawmakers
and
others
fleeing.
Trump
and his
allies
also
devised
a plan
to use
false
electors
from key
states
to
thwart
certification.
The
August
2023
indictment
charged
Trump
with
conspiring
to
defraud
the
United
States,
corruptly
obstructing
an
official
proceeding
and
conspiring
to do
so, and
conspiring
against
the
right of
Americans
to vote.
Trump
last
October
sought
to have
the
charges
dismissed
based on
his
immunity
claim.
U.S.
District
Judge
Tanya
Chutkan
ruled
against
him in
December.
The U.S.
Court of
Appeals
for the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
in
February
upheld
Chutkan
ruling.
The
Supreme
Court's
ruling
is
expected
by the
end of
June,
which
could
force
Chutkan
to
decide
whether
to begin
a trial
in
September
or
October,
when
early
voting
already
will be
underway
in some
states.
Trump
also
faces
election
subversion
charges
in state
court in
Georgia
and
federal
charges
in
Florida
brought
by Smith
relating
to
keeping
classified
documents
after
leaving
office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|