Donald Trump may not receive the broad immunity he desires. However, it seems that the Supreme Court justices are not likely to quickly reject the former president’s claims. This increases the chances that Trump may not have to go to trial for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election until November.
During the arguments on Thursday, the Justices emphasized the significant importance of the case they were considering.
However, for Trump, the main consequence is that the important matters involved will probably result in a delay of his criminal case until after he either wins or loses his next election.
Special counsel Jack Smith requested that the justices address Trump’s claims promptly and then proceed with the trial, which was initially planned to start last month. During the oral arguments, it became clear that some justices prefer to send the case back to a lower court. This would allow the lower court to decide which of Trump’s actions, as mentioned in the indictment, are actually connected to his job.
“Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Sauer that he believes you have admitted that some of the acts mentioned in the indictment are done in private, while others are done in an official capacity.” “Do you believe that the DC circuit or the District Court should be responsible for conducting the initial analysis to determine which is which?”
According to Kavanaugh, any additional debates about the distinction between Trump’s official and private actions could be handled by US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC. She may be responsible for hearing and making a decision on the case.
Also Read: Ohio Judge Temporarily Blocks State Preemption Law
Smith would find it extremely difficult to try Trump before the November election if there is a delay like this. If Trump were to defeat President Joe Biden, it is not difficult to imagine how Trump would utilize his presidential powers to avoid the legal situation. Smith’s decision to prosecute Trump is the primary way for the former president to face consequences for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
John Sauer, who is a lawyer for Trump, said that a former president should have complete protection from legal consequences for actions that may only have a small connection to the president’s actual duties. He used arguments from a previous Supreme Court case that established the limits of presidential immunity in civil matters.
Some of the conservative justices on the court, particularly Justice Samuel Alito, appeared to be understanding of Sauer’s argument. Sauer believes that it should be very difficult for a court or prosecutor to question whether a president was truly fulfilling their duties when they broke the law.
Alito seemed more convinced than some of the other justices. However, even Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who seemed doubtful of some of Sauer’s other points, mentioned that Smith’s team might need to make significant changes to the current indictment against Trump if they want to move forward with the case quickly.
Barrett suggested that the special counsel might only investigate actions that Trump was doing outside of his official duties. Michael Dreeben, who spoke for Smith’s team, appeared unsure about agreeing to such a solution.
“According to the indictment, there is a complex conspiracy involving different parts. Private lawyers were involved in carrying out the fraud, and the petitioner used his official powers to increase the chances of success for these conspiracies,” Dreeben explained in response. “We want to show the jury a complete picture of the events, including the order they happened and how serious they were, to help them understand why each step was taken.”
Barrett and other judges asked Sauer and Dreeben to carefully examine Trump’s actions as described in the indictment, going through them step by step.
Leave a Reply