The United States Supreme Court recently held a hearing regarding former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to undo his 2020 election defeat. During the hearing, the conservative justices expressed sympathy towards Trump’s argument that presidents have some immunity against criminal charges for actions taken while in office.
The justices probed hypothetical examples of presidential wrongdoing, such as selling nuclear secrets or ordering a coup, and expressed concern about presidents lacking any level of immunity, including for less egregious acts. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative, noted that the court was “writing a rule for the ages.” Justice Samuel Alito, also a conservative, expressed concern that without immunity, the presidency would be severely impacted.
Trump had appealed after lower courts rejected his request to be shielded from four election-related criminal charges. His lawyer, D. John Sauer, argued that without immunity, the presidency would be adversely affected. Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel, argued that the Supreme Court had never recognized the kind of immunity Trump seeks. He emphasized that there are lawful mechanisms to contest election results.
During the hearing, justices posed hypothetical scenarios to test the limits of Trump’s claimed immunity. For example, Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked if a president selling nuclear secrets or ordering a military coup would be immune from prosecution. Sauer responded that if structured as official acts, the president could not be prosecuted without impeachment and removal first.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about relying solely on prosecutors’ good faith to prevent abusive prosecutions against presidents if immunity is rejected. A ruling is expected by the end of June, which could impact Trump’s trial and potential presidential campaign. If Trump regains the presidency, he could seek to end the prosecution or pardon himself for federal crimes.
