Supreme Court justices says Trump immunity decision will have ‘huge implications’ for America: Listen live

This morning in New York Criminal Court, Donald Trump complained about not being able to attend Supreme Court oral arguments.

“The Supreme Court has a very important argument before it today. I would’ve loved to have been there but this judge would not allow it. He puts himself above the Supreme Court, which is unfortunate. But the argument on immunity is very important. It’s nothing to do with me, this has to do with a president in the future, one hundred years from now. If you don’t have immunity you’re not going to do anything, you’re going to become a ceremonial president,” Mr Trump said.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns that without protections, presidents could face politically motivated prosecution for actions they took while in office.

“This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said while weighing arguments.

At the conclusion of Mr Dreeben’s questioning, Justice Roberts asked Mr Sauer if he would like to rebuttal which he declined.

The case is now submitted to the court and will be considered.

It is unclear when the court will issue a decision – typically they make final rulings in mid-late June.

Justice Jackson suggested that the Supreme Court should not rule extremely narrowly in the case and only decide if presidents have absolute immunity or not.

Throughout arguments, justices have suggested that they would offer some criminal prosecution immunity to presidents whether that be immunity from prosecution regarding “core” duties awarded specifically to the presidency or “official acts”.

“Is this the right vehicle to hammer out that test?” Justice Jackson asked Mr Dreeben, saying that the actions alleged indictment had “no plausible argument” that they fall under that “core”.

“We don’t think there are any core act alleged indictment,” Mr Dreeben said, agreeing that this was not the right case to rule narrowly.

Justice Barrett asked Mr Dreeben how they Justice Department would go forward if the court found that much of the alleged actions in the indictment were considered private action.

Mr Dreeben said that the Special Counsel would still “like to present [the private action] as an integrated picture to the jury” – hinting that it would not stop them from going forward with an indictment.

“We still think we could introduce the actions with the Justice Department for their evidentiary value,” Mr Dreeben said.

The second half of today’s arguments has been a bit of a struggle for Mr Dreeben, who is being grilled and, often, interrupted by conservative justices.

In the moments Mr Dreeben has had uninterrupted time to speak, he says Mr Trump’s actions as laid out in the indictment were conducted as a presidential candidate, not the president – meaning they are not protected as “official” acts.

Justice Alito, one of the most conservative on the court, and Justice Sotomayor, one of the most liberal, both argue how protections from criminal prosecution incentivize a president’s approach their job.

Justice Alito suggests that without protections, presidents cannot fulfill their duties without worrying about politically motivated criminal prosecutions.

Justice Sotomayor says that, “a stable democratic society needs the good faith of its public officials and that good faith assumes that they will follow the law.”

Justice Alito, and other justices, have raised concerns about political opponents going after presidents without criminal protections.

“Presidents have to make a lot of tough decisions about enforcing the law…. Did I understand you say… if he makes a mistake he’s subject to the criminal laws?”