Supreme Court Hears Trump’s Immunity Claim in Election Case
TL/DR –
The US Supreme Court is considering whether a former president can be prosecuted for actions taken in office, in relation to Donald Trump’s alleged election interference. The Court is unlikely to accept Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, but may remand the case for further proceedings, potentially delaying any trial until after the upcoming election. The justices are divided on the scope of presidential immunity and the potential implications for future presidents, with conservative Justice Samuel Alito expressing concern about a cycle that could destabilize the functioning of democracy.
Supreme Court Indicates Delay in Trump’s Election Interference Trial
The Supreme Court recently hinted that the trial in former President Donald Trump’s election interference case is unlikely to proceed anytime soon. The justices expressed concerns over certain presidential acts and whether they should be immune from prosecution.
While the court is likely to dismiss Trump’s broad claim of absolute immunity, the case could be sent back for further proceedings. This makes a pre-election trial less likely. The court is examining the unique legal question of the prosecutability of a former president for what Trump’s attorneys deem “official acts” performed in office. A key focus is whether the justices will rule promptly so a trial can commence before the November election.
Most legal experts are questioning Trump’s broad argument that the entire election interference indictment should be dismissed based on immunity. The court’s ruling on the degree to which official acts are safeguarded and the speed of their ruling will be equally significant. Trump’s lawyers admit any actions not deemed to be official acts could face prosecution.
Although the court’s three liberal justices seemed more sympathetic to prosecutors, the court’s conservatives displayed differing views on the scope of presidential immunity, making the ultimate ruling unclear. Numerous justices expressed worries over the widespread implications for future presidents, generally avoiding discussing the specific allegations against Trump.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a fellow conservative, voiced similar concerns, citing the expired system in which independent counsels investigated presidents as a bad precedent. On the other hand, several justices appeared skeptical of the argument that blanket immunity would apply to a former president.
The Supreme Court announced on Feb. 28 that it would hear the case, evaluating “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.” The decision immediately put the prospect of a pre-election trial in jeopardy.
Under the original schedule set by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, Trump’s trial was set to begin on March 4. Instead, the first of the four criminal cases against Trump to go to trial was the prosecution brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in New York, where Trump was indicted.
The federal indictment returned by a grand jury in Washington in August included four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The Supreme Court has already heard arguments in another Jan. 6 case that could affect two of the charges against Trump.
Trump, according to the indictment, conspired to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the government function by which those results are collected, counted and certified.” Trump denies these charges.
Even if the court rules quickly, a trial is unlikely to start until at least three months after the ruling and could last up to 12 weeks, leaving little time for a resolution before the election.
—
Read More US News