The US Supreme Court may reject Trump’s request for immunity in the criminal trial in Washington

For nearly three hours Thursday, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether former presidents are immune from prosecution and what exactly it means if they are. The judges’ verdict will determine whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on charges of trying to undermine the 2020 election.

Whatever the decision, each judge agreed it would shape US democracy for years to come, according to the BBC.

“We are writing a rule for the ages,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The case, heard in a special session a day after the court’s last scheduled argument of the term, hinges on Trump’s claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges for actions taken while in office.

According to him, this immunity protects him from criminal charges brought by US special counsel Jack Smith that he is trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The lawsuit will remain on hold until the court issues its decision, expected in June.

The justices’ questions, from both sides, indicated the division within the Court and suggested a split decision could be likely.

What scenarios did the judges discuss?

The questions, along with tense exchanges and high-stakes hypothetical scenarios, also showed that both the conservative majority and the liberal minority are making their decision with an eye on history. Would blanket immunity mean a future president would be free to use the US military to kill his rivals? Or, without it, would outgoing presidents be subject to the whims of individual prosecutors and thrown into prison as part of political vendettas?

While the conservative side seemed most open to the idea that all former US presidents should have some degree of immunity, all of the justices appeared skeptical of arguments made by Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, that a former president has almost total against prosecution.

Answering questions first, Sauer was quizzed by the nine justices on how comprehensive that protection should be.

“What if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” asked Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices.

Sauer was hesitant to answer before saying it would “depend on the circumstances.”

Kagan replied, “Sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it?”

But Michael Dreeben, who represents the US government, also faced the same sharp questioning as the justices listed the consequences of leaving US presidents without some level of criminal protection.

“I understood you to say…if [președintele] makes a mistake… Is he subject to criminal laws like anyone else?’ Justice Samuel Alito asked.

“Don’t you think he’s in a special, particularly precarious position?” he continued.

Dreeben responded that “making a mistake” does not mean someone will be prosecuted.

Publisher: MI

Download the Digi24 app and find out the most important news of the day