Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump’s blanket presidential immunity argument

The
Supreme
Court
on
Thursday
appeared
likely
to
reject
former
President
Donald Trump’s
sweeping
claim
of
absolute
immunity
from
criminal
prosecution
for
acts
in
office
—
but
the
court
also
cast
doubt
on
parts
of
the
federal
election
interference
case
against
the
former
president.

The

question
before
the
court
—
whether
an
ex-president
can
be
prosecuted
for
official
acts
performed
while
in
office
—
was
an
existential
one
for
special
counsel
Jack
Smith’s
case
charging
Trump
with
illegally
trying
to
overturn
his
2020
election
loss
to
President

Joe
Biden.

Smith
was
sitting
in
the
courtroom
on
Thursday,
as
attorney
Michael
Dreeben
argued
the
government’s
case.

In
early
questioning,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
sounded
skeptical
of
the
argument
by
Trump’s
lawyers
that
a
president
should
be
immune
from
prosecution
for
anything
official
performed
while
in
office.

“I
am
having
a
hard
time
thinking
that
creating
false
documents,
that
submitting
false
documents,
that
ordering
the
assassination
of
a
rival,
that
accepting
a
bribe
and
countless
other
laws
that
could
be
broken
for
personal
gain,
that
anyone
would
say
that
it
would
be
reasonable
for
a
president
or
any
public
official
to
do
that,”
Sotomayor
said
to
Trump
attorney
John
Sauer.

Later
on
in
the
questioning,
several
conservative
justices
appeared
to
seriously
consider
that
the
prospect
of
prosecution
could
have
a
chilling
effect
on
a
president
in
office.

“I’m
not
concerned
about
this
case,
but
I
am
concerned
about
future
uses
of
the
criminal
law
to
target
political
opponents
based
on
accusations
about
their
motives,”
said
Justice
Neil
Gorsuch.

Justices
appointed
by
Republican
presidents
also
questioned
specific
parts
of
the
case
Smith
is
mounting
against
Trump.
Justices
Samuel
Alito
and
Brett
Kavanaugh
both
expressed
skepticism
about
a
key
part
of
the
case
against
Trump
for
election
interference,
known
as
the
fraud
conspiracy
statute.

The
high
court’s
eventual
ruling
carries
profound
consequences
for
some
of
Trump’s
other
pending
criminal
cases
that
hinge
on
his
conduct
in
the
White
House.

Along
with
Smith’s
case
in
Washington,
D.C.,
Trump
is
charged
in
Georgia
with
attempting
to
reverse
his
loss
to
Biden
in
that
state’s
2020
contest.

Trump
has
repeatedly
claimed
that
if
a
president
is
at
risk
of
criminal
prosecution
for
official
acts,
then
the
president
is
effectively
hamstrung,
or “chilled”
as
Sauer
put
it,
in
their
actions
and
decisions
by
the
fear
of
future
prosecution.

But
Justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
raised
the
opposite
concern.

“You
seem
to
be
worried
about
the
President
being
chilled,”
she
told
Sauer. “I
think
that
we
would
have
a
really
significant
opposite
problem:
if
the
President
wasn’t
chilled,
if
someone
with
those
kinds
of
powers,
the
most
powerful
person
in
the
world
with
the
greatest
amount
of
authority
could
go
into
office
knowing
that
there
would
be
no
potential
penalty
for
committing
crimes.”

“I’m
trying
to
understand
what
the
disincentive
is
from
turning
the
Oval
Office
into
you
know,
the
seat
of
criminal
activity
in
this
country,”
she
added.

Trump
was
not
at
the
Supreme
Court
to
hear
the
oral
arguments
because
he
was
required
to
attend
his
New
York
criminal
trial.

The
former
president
is
on
trial
in
Manhattan
Supreme
Court
for
allegedly
falsifying
business
records
when,
after
becoming
president
in
2017,
he
reimbursed
his
then-lawyer
for
a
$130,000
hush
money
payment
to
a
porn
star.

Attorneys
for
Trump
and
Smith
began
arguing
at
10
A.M.
before
the
nine
justices,
three
of
whom
were
nominated
by
Trump
during
his
one
term
as
president.

The
Supreme
Court
agreed
to
take
up
the
case
after
two
lower
courts
rejected
Trump’s
claim
that
he
is
immune
from
the
indictment
being
prosecuted
by
Smith.

By
weighing
in
on
the
immunity
question,
the
high
court
effectively
delayed
by
months
the
election
interference
case,
which
is
on
hold
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
in
Washington,
D.C.
The
Supreme
Court
could
rule
on
the
issue
quickly,
but
it
tends
to
save
its
biggest
rulings
for
the
end
of
the
term,
which
typically
wraps
up
in
late
June
or
early
July.

Even
if
the
justices
reject
Trump’s
argument
and
allow
Smith’s
case
to
resume,
it
might
not
go
to
trial
until
after
the
Nov.
5
presidential
election.
Trump,
the
presumptive
Republican
presidential
nominee,
has
tried
to
delay
all
four
of
his
pending
criminal
trials
past
November.

The
federal
election
interference
trial
was
originally
set
to
begin
on

March
4.

Some
legal
experts
critical
of
Trump

slammed
the
court
for
keeping
Trump’s
immunity
claim
alive
after
a
federal
appeals
court
in
D.C.
forcefully

rejected
it
in
early
February.

The
Supreme
Court “has
already
unduly
delayed
this
matter,”
said
Norm
Eisen,
a
lawyer
and
former
aide
to
House
Democrats
during
Trump’s
first
impeachment,
in
a
press
call
Wednesday.

The
indictment
brought
by
Smith
charges
Trump
with
four
criminal
counts,
including
conspiracy
to
defraud
the
United
States.
Smith
alleges
that
Trump
tried
to
subvert
the
2020
results
by
spreading
false
election
fraud
claims,
organizing
slates
of
fake
pro-Trump
electors
in
states
Biden
won,
and
trying
to
exploit
a
violent
mob
of
Trump’s
supporters
that
stormed
the
Capitol
on
Jan.
6,
2021.

This
is
developing
news.
Please
check
back
for
updates.