Supreme Court justices says Trump immunity decision will have ‘huge implications’ for America: Listen live
Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in the case that will determine if a president has immunity from criminal prosecution, brought by Donald Trump in an attempt to dismiss his federal election interference case.
Arguments, which lasted roughly three and a half hours, began heated with the majority of the conservative arm of the court toying with the idea of awarding presidents some form of immunity from criminal charges. Some expressed concern that presidents could face politically motivated prosecution, others worried it would impede a president’s ability to do their job.
Most of the court, notably the liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appeared skeptical of awarding presidents, and Mr Trump, broad absolute immunity.
Should the court rule narrowly on immunity, it could send Mr Trump’s appeal back to a lower court for further litigation – potentially delaying the federal election interference trial.
Thursday’s arguments stem from the indictment brought against Mr Trump by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding his attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Mr Trump did not attend arguments as he is required to be in New York for the latest installment of his hush money trial.
At his criminal trial, Trump complains about not attending
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.
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 20:30
Watch: Lawyer For Donald Trump Argues Before The Supreme Court On Presidential Immunity-
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 19:45
Anti-Trump protesters convene outside of the court
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 19:20
Supreme Court justices appear poised to offer Trump some immunity
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.
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 18:54
Arguments are over
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.
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 17:49
Justice Jackson suggests court should not rule narrowly
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.
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 17:40
Barrett asks how to proceed if the court find electoral scheme was ‘private’
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.
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 17:30
Dreeben argues Trump was acting as a candidate – not as president
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.
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 17:09
Alito and Sotomayor offer arguments on two sides of the same coin
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.”
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 16:55
Alito makes an argument for presidential protection
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?”
Ariana Baio25 April 2024 16:39