The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal charges accusing Donald J. Trump of plotting to overturn the 2020 election must be dismissed because he cannot be prosecuted for any official actions he took as president. Hearing arguments regarding Mr. J. Trump’s claims.
Here are some points.
Some judges appear to want to define certain levels of official conduct as exempt.
While Trump’s claim of near-absolute immunity was seen as a long-term goal aimed primarily at slowing the progress of the lawsuit, several members of the Republican-appointed majority have been granted some degree of immunity. It seems to suggest that it is necessary. Some of them expressed concern about the long-term effects of leaving future former presidents open to prosecution for official actions.
Among other things, Justice Brett Kavanaugh compared the threat of prosecution for official actions to how a series of presidents were “thwarted” by independent prosecutors’ investigations, and as one of the Supreme Court’s largest prosecutors. It criticized a 1984 ruling that upheld the now-defunct law that created such prosecutors. error. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized the appeals court’s decision denying Mr. Trump immunity, saying, “The focus is not on what kind of conduct we are talking about or what documents we are talking about.” He is concerned that there has not been a focused review of the issues.
The Democratic-appointed justices (Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson) asked questions that showed deep concern that the president could commit official crimes with impunity.
The argument suggested that President Trump’s trial would be further delayed and complicated.
The shape of Trump’s trial could change if the Supreme Court limits prosecutors’ ability to bring charges over his official actions.
A decision to send all or part of the case back to a lower court could further delay progress toward trial, increasing the likelihood that a trial will not begin before Election Day.
Some of the matters described in the indictment appear to be the candidates’ personal actions, such as working with personal lawyers to fabricate lists of fraudulent voters. Others appear to be official acts in his role as president, such as pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence.
At one point, Judge Amy Coney Barrett suggested that prosecutors could drop Mr. Trump’s supposedly public actions from the case and move forward with a speedy trial that would focus only on his private actions. Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, also said in court that no evidence of Trump’s official actions should be brought into trial.
But Justice Department attorney Michael R. Dreeben, who argued on behalf of the special counsel’s office, said the indictment alleges that Mr. He said that an “integrated conspiracy” had been revealed in which official actions were taken. It will be successful.
Even if a court found immunity for Mr. Trump’s official conduct, prosecutors would still have to He argued that evidence about them should be allowed to be presented to the jury. Information protected by the First Amendment can still be used as evidence in conspiracy cases.
The hearing revolved around two very different approaches to the issue.
A wide range of moral questions loomed over the hearing. The question was how presidential immunity could affect the future of American politics.
Naturally, the views on both sides were very different.
Mr. Sauer is paralyzed by the knowledge that without immunity, all presidents, once out of office, can face an onslaught from rivals based on the tough demands they had to make while in power. I argued that it would be. He envisioned a dystopian world of constant reprisals of political prosecution that would destroy “the presidency as we know it.”
Dreeben envisions the opposite scenario, arguing that any form of blanket immunity would put the president completely outside the rule of law, allowing him to commit criminal acts such as “bribery, treason, sedition, and even murder.” They feared that this would lead to them being encouraged to do so without being punished.
“The planners were well aware of the danger of a king who could do no wrong,” he says.
Both sides found someone to defend their position in court.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued that without some form of impunity, former presidents would be more exposed to partisan battles after they leave office and their successors would use the courts to pursue them. He seemed clearly concerned. And that could lead to a never-ending cycle of retaliation, a risk to “stable and democratic societies,” he added.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that if the president were indeed protected by immunity, he would be free from the law and the Oval Office could become what she called a “center of crime.” They seem to be more concerned about their gender.
What happens next?
Among the justices, especially conservative justices, there seemed to be less urgency to quickly resolve the immunity issue. That left the possibility that Mr. Trump could avoid a trial on charges of plotting to subvert the previous election until long after voters went to the polls to decide whether to elect him president in this election.
And if he is elected, he could potentially postpone any trial or order the charges against him to be dropped while he remains in office.
It may take time for courts to independently analyze what presidential actions qualify for immunity. And even if a judge decides that at least some of the charges against Mr. Trump are actionable, it will be difficult to hold a trial by November unless a decision is reached by the end of June or early July. there is a possibility.
That would be nearly impossible if the court had taken a different route and sent the analysis back to trial judge Tanya S. Chutkan. If Judge Chutkan is ordered to hold further hearings on which of the indictment’s many allegations were Trump’s official acts in office and which were private acts as a presidential candidate; The process could take months and last until 2025.