WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appears highly skeptical of former President Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution, but it's less clear whether the justices are moving toward a quick resolution.
Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday rejected an argument for absolute immunity that would have blocked Special Counsel Jack Smith from prosecuting Trump on charges of conspiring to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. He was among at least five members of the court likely to do so.
The discussion entered its second hour by early morning.
The timing of the Supreme Court's decision could be as important as its outcome. Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has argued for the trial to be delayed until after the November election, and the longer the judge delays his decision, the more likely Trump will prevail. .
Two of President Trump's three appointees to the high court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, said former presidents may be granted certain immunity; He suggested that lower courts may need to decide whether it applies. That could further delay the trial.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, seemed less enthusiastic about the arguments advanced by Trump attorney D. John Sauer.
Smith's team is seeking a quick resolution. The court typically issues its final opinion by the end of June, about four months before the election.
Trump, the first former president to be charged with a crime, had said Thursday he wanted to go to the Supreme Court. Instead, he was in a New York courtroom. permanent court He is accused of falsifying business records to avoid compromising information from voters when he ordered her to pay hush money to silence her claims that he had had a sexual relationship with a former porn actress.
Trump's lawyers argue that the former president has the right to: absolute immunity for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former Oval Office occupiers will become commonplace, and the president will be unable to function as commander in chief if he has to worry about criminal charges.
Associated Press Supreme Court reporter Mark Sherman reported that the court will decide whether former President Trump can be tried for his actions after the last presidential election.
Lower courts, including a unanimous three-judge panel on the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals, rejected these arguments.
of Election interference conspiracy case Mr. Smith's case in Washington is just one of four criminal cases Mr. Trump faces.
Smith's team says the framers of the Constitution never intended for the president to be above the law, and in any case, they are not satisfied with the actions Trump is being charged with, including participating in a military enlistment program. ). Fake voters in battleground states Biden won — and that was never part of the president's official duties.
Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Mr. Trump's request for absolute immunity from district attorney subpoenas for his financial records. The case unfolded during President Trump's term and resulted in a criminal investigation, but no charges were filed.
Justice Clarence Thomas was supposed to block enforcement of the subpoena citing Trump's responsibilities as president, but he still rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity and rejected the clause in the Constitution that ratified it. pointed out how it is understood by those who have done so.
“The text of the Constitution…does not confer absolute immunity on the president,” Thomas wrote in 2020.
The court's apparent lack of support for the blanket immunity sought by President Trump has led commentators to speculate about why the court took up the case in the first place.
Phillip Bobbitt, a constitutional law scholar at Columbia University Law School, said he was concerned about the delay, but said there was value in the decision, which amounted to “a definitive statement by the Supreme Court that we are a government of laws, not a government of men.” He said he thinks there is.
Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, said on the Lawfare blog that courts may also be concerned about how their decisions will affect future presidents.
But Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the court should never have taken up the case because an ideologically diverse panel of the federal appeals court in Washington had adequately addressed the issue.
President Roosevelt said, “If we were going to file a lawsuit, we should have done it sooner, because then there was a good chance we wouldn't be able to finish the case before the election.'' “Even Richard Nixon said the American people have a right to know if their president is a fraud. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to agree with this.”
The court has several options for deciding the case. The justices could reject Mr. Trump's claims and unfreeze the case so U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan can resume trial preparations, which could take up to three months. he suggests.
The court could end the prosecution of Mr. Smith by declaring for the first time that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts they committed while in office.
Chutkan also elaborated on when former presidents are protected from prosecution, declaring that Trump's alleged conduct easily crossed the line, or filing lawsuits to determine whether Trump should be brought to trial. There is a possibility that it will be remanded.
___
Follow AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court below. https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
