Washington — In a landmark case, the Supreme Court is poised to deliberate on Thursday whether former President Donald Trump should be shielded from federal prosecution for actions taken during his time in office. This pivotal decision will have far-reaching implications for both his legal standing and political future.
Referred to as Trump v. U.S., this legal battle marks the second instance this term where the highest court in the land is entering uncharted territory. The outcome of this case will not only impact the former president but also have significant ramifications for the upcoming November election.
The Supreme Court's ruling will play a crucial role in determining the fate of special counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump. Should the court rule in favor of Trump, the prosecution would be halted. Conversely, if Smith emerges victorious, paving the way for the case to proceed to trial, it could reignite a legal battle that has been on hold for months following decisions in lower courts.
The implications of the Supreme Court case
If the special counsel secures a victory, it could significantly heighten the stakes of the 2024 election for Trump. In the event of his return to the White House, he might direct the Justice Department to dismiss the case.
"After 236 years since the Constitution was established, the fact that such a bold claim is being made now is quite telling," remarked Jonathan Entin, a retired law professor from Case Western Reserve University. "It's noteworthy that this is the first instance of a former president facing serious criminal charges. Perhaps that's why this issue hasn't arisen before. Additionally, this is the first time in our history that a defeated president has adamantly refused to acknowledge their loss."
The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether presidential immunity extends to criminal prosecution for actions taken by a former president during their time in office. With a 6-3 conservative majority, it's worth noting that three of the justices were appointed by Trump.
Arguments in the case will be the last heard by the justices in its current term, which has featured a series of legal battles that have directly or indirectly involved a prominent figure. The Supreme Court in March said states cannot bar the figure from the 2024 ballot using a rarely invoked provision of the 14th Amendment, overturning a blockbuster decision from a state's highest court that deemed the figure ineligible for a certain position.
The proceedings are also occurring alongside the historic criminal trial involving the figure taking place in a major city, where they are charged with multiple state felony counts for alleged misconduct. The individual pleaded not guilty to those charges, and unsuccessfully attempted to have them dismissed on legal grounds. A request for them to be excused to attend Supreme Court oral arguments in Washington was denied by the judge overseeing their trial.
The immunity case
Thursday's arguments stem from multiple criminal counts a federal grand jury brought against the figure in connection to their alleged actions after a significant event. The individual pleaded not guilty to all counts last year and the case is currently on hold as the Supreme Court considers their claims of absolute immunity.
Following the rejection of his claim by two lower courts, including a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel in the nation's capital, former President Trump is now seeking the Supreme Court's intervention. His argument is centered on the belief that actions he took after the election should be considered "official" and therefore shielded from criminal charges.
The crucial question facing the justices pertains to the extent of immunity a former president holds from criminal prosecution for actions deemed to be official during their time in office. This matter has never been directly addressed by the Supreme Court, although a previous ruling in 1982 established immunity from civil liability for acts within the "outer perimeter" of official duties.
Notably, Trump's case marks the first instance in U.S. history of a former president facing criminal charges. He faces prosecution in Washington as part of four separate cases, with allegations in both federal and state courts. Trump maintains his innocence, attributing the prosecutions to political motives.
His legal team argues that the unprecedented nature of his situation underscores the need for presidents to be safeguarded from criminal charges.
Trump's legal team argued that no former or current president should face criminal charges for official acts, citing the need for the presidency to maintain its independence. The lawyers emphasized that the president's ability to function effectively would be compromised if subject to prosecution after leaving office.
Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, is preparing to present this argument before the court, reiterating that the actions in question were carried out under the president's authority and not as a candidate for office.
Sauer warned of potential consequences if presidents could be criminally prosecuted, suggesting it would lead to future presidents being vulnerable to blackmail and extortion. He emphasized that such a scenario would weaken the presidency and damage the American political system.
Furthermore, Trump's legal team contended that presidents could only be prosecuted if impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. While Trump was impeached by the House for incitement of insurrection following the Capitol attack, he was ultimately acquitted by the Senate.
But the special counsel has successfully urged lower courts to endorse the opposing view: that the Constitution does not vest a president with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, especially when tied to the private act of campaigning.
In a brief filed to the Supreme Court earlier this month, prosecutors argued, "No presidential power at issue in this case entitles the president to claim immunity from the general federal criminal prohibitions supporting the charges: fraud against the United States, obstruction of official proceedings, and denial of the right to vote."
Smith has alleged that Trump engaged in a multi-pronged scheme to subvert the transfer of presidential power, and his actions were all taken to achieve a private goal: to stay in office for a second term.
Michael Dreeben, a member of Smith's team who previously served as deputy solicitor general, will argue in court on Thursday. The special counsel has asserted in court filings that Trump's alleged conduct "frustrates core constitutional provisions that protect democracy."
The special counsel told the justices that there are "layered safeguards" when a criminal case is brought that "provide assurance that prosecutions will be screened under rigorous standards and that no president need be chilled in fulfilling his responsibilities by the understanding that he is subject to prosecution if he commits federal crimes."
Legal Battle Unfolds: Trump's Prosecution Case
Smith's team directly challenged Trump's lawyers' argument that the charges against the former president are unprecedented in legal history. They stated, "The absence of any prosecutions of former presidents until this case does not reflect the understanding that presidents are immune from criminal liability; it instead underscores the unprecedented nature of petitioner's alleged conduct."
Even if the justices rule that former presidents are immune from criminal charges for official actions, prosecutors argued that Trump's alleged behavior detailed in the indictment was a "private scheme with private actors to achieve a private end: petitioner's effort to remain in power by fraud."
The special counsel emphasized to the court that an alleged plan to overturn the outcome of the presidential election is a "paradigmatic example of conduct that should not be immunized, even if other conduct should be."
Supreme Court Revisited
Despite the eventual decision of the Supreme Court on Trump's arguments and the potential for his prosecution, the case's consideration by the court has introduced significant delays to the legal proceedings.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, presiding over the case, had initially scheduled the trial for March. However, that timeline was discarded as the D.C. Circuit reviewed the immunity appeal.
In a ruling made in December, Chutkan dismissed Trump's claims of immunity, stating, "the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass" from prosecution.
The former president appealed that decision. In an attempt to accelerate the proceedings, Smith's team asked the Supreme Court to bypass the D.C. Circuit and take the unusual step of considering the immunity question before the appeals court ruled.
The justices rejected that request and opted to allow the D.C. Circuit to hear and decide the case first.
Once a three-judge panel ruled unanimously against Trump earlier this year, Smith asked the court to let that decision stand and decline to further consider the matter. Although the Supreme Court decided to intervene, it is moving quicker than it typically does, and the justices are likely to rule by the end of June.
Entin, from Case Western Reserve University, said that though the Supreme Court has not acted as quickly as Smith wanted, it is still under time pressure, and drawing the line between what is and isn't an official act that may be covered by presidential immunity is a difficult task.
"From an institutional standpoint, there are powerful reasons for the court to rule less broadly than President Trump is asking for," he said.
Trump's reasoning for sweeping immunity is difficult to reconcile with the law and historical record, Entin said.
He expressed his concern about the implications of accepting Trump's argument in this case, stating that it would essentially place presidents above the law. According to him, this would mean that presidents are not truly held accountable for their actions, and he finds it difficult to believe that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of such a notion.
