The final case the Supreme Court justices will hear regarding their 2023-2024 terms is the most important, as former President Donald Trump will argue that he has immunity from prosecution over accusations that he illegally conspired to stay in power after his defeat against Joe Biden in the United States. 2020 election.
In addition to its implications for the 2024 elections, this case has far-reaching implications that could significantly alter the scope of presidential power for decades to come.
“WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO FUNCTION PROPERLY, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN GREAT AND ETERNAL DANGER!” » Trump, 77 years old, warned on Truth Social last week in one of his many articles on the case.
Here’s what you need to know before oral arguments begin Thursday.
How did this business come about?
On August 1 of last year, special counsel Jack Smith filed a four-count criminal complaint against Trump, accusing him of making “knowingly false” allegations of election fraud and conspiring to prevent the counting and certification of legal electoral college votes.
Trump’s lawyers, however, argued that the 45th president was only carrying out his duty as president to save the election.
According to this theory, actions such as the infamous January 2, 2021 phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger – during which the president implored election officials to “find” the 11,780 votes needed to overturn his loss – were entirely lawful.
“The text of the Impeachment Clause confirms the original meaning of the Executive Powers Clause, namely that current and former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts,” the Trump’s lawyers in a March brief.
Smith’s team vehemently disputed this assertion, saying in its response that an “alleged criminal plan to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his legally elected successor is the paradigmatic example of conduct which should not be immune, even if other conduct should be.
Trump’s legal team warned that if the justices ruled in favor of Smith, future presidents would be significantly handicapped in carrying out their duties.
Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago, is skeptical of this claim.
“We’ve never had immunity before,” Mariotti told the Post, “and presidents have lived with the possibility of being able to be prosecuted before and the country has done very well.”
The question of “SEAL Team Six”
A stark example of the ramifications of Trump’s argument was demonstrated in January, when the issue of immunity was argued before the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival (and is) not indicted face criminal prosecution? » Justice Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, asked at one point.
“If he were indicted and convicted first,” Trump lawyer John Sauer responded.
How did the lower courts rule?
Last December, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s immunity argument, ruling that the former president was not entitled to a “free pass from prison for life.”
The Washington appeals court also ruled against Trump in February, saying his actions after the 2020 election “constituted, if proven, an unprecedented attack on the structure of our government.” He would have injected himself into a process in which the president has no role.”
In late February, the Supreme Court announced it would consider Trump’s appeal, putting Smith’s case on hold until the immunity issue was resolved.
Could Trump win by losing?
Many experts doubt the former president will be able to reverse his losing streak on the question, in the court’s own words, of “whether and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity ? criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his mandate.
Mariotti predicted that the wording of the question indicated that the high court would “qualify” presidential immunity and was unlikely to leave Trump completely immune.
However, the former president may have done enough to ensure that he will never face a day of trial for the accusations made against him by Smith.
“The goal of the Trump campaign and the Trump legal team has been to wait as long as possible in hopes that as few of them face trial before the election,” said Justin Crowe, a professor of political science at Williams College, the Post Wednesday. .
The trial before Judge Chutkan was scheduled to begin March 4, the day before Super Tuesday of the Republican primary.
However, the proceedings were interrupted by the immunity challenge.
Once the Supreme Court issues its decision, which may not happen until late June, Chutkan will face a tight timetable to ensure the case is heard before the election – a rematch between Trump and Biden .
There’s also another problem: The justices could send the case back to a lower court to iron out questions such as what constitutes “official acts” worthy of presidential immunity, further delaying the case.
If Trump defeats Biden and takes power on January 20, 2025, he could order the Justice Department to drop charges against him — an unprecedented move.
“It’s not like Trump would violate the law by telling the DOJ to drop the case,” Crowe said. “There may be people who complain, but it’s because of a norm rather than a rule.”
Mindful of the race against time, Smith pleaded with the Supreme Court in December to override the Washington DC appeals court and expedite the immunity trial, but the high court refused to do so.
Trump’s “double jeopardy” argument
Notably, the Supreme Court decided not to consider a second argument from Trump’s lawyers, that his impeachment by Congress in connection with the January 6, 2021 riots at the Capitol precludes the prosecution brought by Smith.
Mariotti said this line “had little chance of success.”
“Double criminality is a criminal law concept,” he told the Post. “And impeachment is a political exercise.”
Is the case unprecedented?
According to Crowe, there have been at least three cases before the court involving former presidents that dealt with immunity issues.
“There have been cases on this topic before and it’s not like the issue of presidential immunity is a foreign issue,” Crowe said. “I think what’s remarkable about all of this is the scope of Trump’s assertions about the nature of his immunity.”
In the first case, US v. Nixon in 1974, the Court unanimously ruled that the 37th president must turn over tape recordings and other subpoenaed documents to a federal district court in connection with the Watergate scandal, thereby rejecting Nixon’s claim of privilege executive on the articles.
Nixon resigned the presidency 16 days later.
Eight years later, the court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that a president is “entitled to absolute immunity” from civil suits for damages “based on his official acts.”
In 1997, the Court clarified its position in Clinton v. Jones, holding that Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state government employee, could sue then-President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment which would have taken place before Clinton became president.
Smith’s team also pointed to former President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon as a precedent proving that “a former president can be prosecuted after leaving office.”
Trump is the first former or sitting US president to face criminal charges – 88 of them spread across four indictments.
In addition to the Smith case in Washington, the former president also faces rap cases in Manhattan, South Florida and Georgia.
New York Post
