Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday grappled with the question of how to define the scope of the president’s immunity from criminal prosecution as Donald Trump battles allegations of interference in the 2020 election.
During oral arguments, the court sought to draw the lines between a president’s personal and official actions, suggesting the matter may need to be sent back to lower courts to evaluate the nature of Trump’s actions.
Such a move could further delay one of the most serious criminal trials against Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election in November. A decision is expected before the end of the Supreme Court’s term, usually in late June.
Trump has advocated for a broad interpretation of immunity, saying presidents can only be impeached if they have previously been charged and convicted by Congress of similar crimes – even in the most extreme circumstances.
The court’s decision will impact a pillar of its defense and reverberate throughout the U.S. government, having lasting implications for the country’s balance of power and presidential accountability.
John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, told the court that allowing a president to be prosecuted for his official actions is “incompatible with our constitutional structure.” There is “no presidency as we know it,” he added, although he acknowledged that a president’s private actions could be subject to criminal prosecution.
Michael Dreeben, representing the Justice Department, countered that there was no constitutional basis for the kind of broad immunity Trump sought and that such a “new theory would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition and murder.” .
Several judges questioned what would be considered an official act. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected that distinction. If “the most powerful person in the world…” . . Although I know there could be no punishment for committing crimes, I try to understand what is the reason for making the Oval Office the seat of criminal activity in this country,” she said.
The court’s liberal wing pushed back against the scope of the legal protections sought by Trump. “Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president should not be above the law?” Elena Kagan asked, citing the Constitution.
Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the court’s conservative wing and a Trump appointee, was also skeptical. She took issue with Sauer’s argument that some laws may not apply to the president: “How can you say that he would be prosecuted if impeached and at the same time say that he is exempt from these criminal laws?”
Other conservative justices appeared to view Trump’s claims more favorably. Samuel Alito said presidents are in a “particularly precarious position.” Brett Kavanaugh said that presidents “will be prosecuted for all personal actions like every other American.” . These are actions taken in an official capacity.”
The Supreme Court case stems from a federal indictment by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith accusing Trump of seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Trump has described the criminal case and the three others he is facing in various courts across the US as a political witch hunt.
The former president said he wanted to attend Thursday’s hearing but was unable to because he faces charges in Manhattan criminal court, where he is on trial for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal an affair.
The judges are dealing with a particularly complex aspect of US law. No law grants the president immunity from criminal charges, and jurisdiction is limited. The Supreme Court has ruled on presidential immunity from civil liability but has never clarified whether it extends to criminal cases.
The Supreme Court recently decided another politically sensitive case involving Trump. Last month, it overturned a decision by the state of Colorado to remove the ex-president from its ballot on the grounds that he participated in an insurrection when a group of his supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.