On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in the alleged election interference case, which was put on hold in February.
Thursday morning, Trump told reporters, “A president has to have immunity,” the Associated Press reported.
“If you don’t have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president,” he added.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Three sets of judges, including the Supreme Court, have attempted to address the question over the last six months.
The Supreme Court could decide to reject Trump’s immunity claim outright, which would return the case to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, allowing proceedings to resume. It could reverse the lower courts’ rulings by declaring that the former president may not be prosecuted, halting the case. Or, the court could find that the president has some immunity. If it determines Trump has some immunity, it could also decide that the allegations against the former president are not protected under that immunity, or it could send the decision back to the district court.
Regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the immunity claim, it should not impact the ongoing New York trial, where Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
Trump has also made an immunity claim in a separate federal indictment in Florida, where he was charged with allegedly retaining classified documents.
During Thursday’s trial, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated, “I don’t understand how the president stands in any different position with respect to the need to follow the law as he is doing his job than anyone else. … If there’s no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?”
Justice Samuel Alito noted that the results of the case would “have effects that go far beyond this particular prosecution.”
Justice Elena Kagan pushed Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer about how far presidential immunity could go.
“How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked, presenting a hypothetical scenario.
“If it’s an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand,” Sauer responded.
The Supreme Court and Sauer spent a portion of the hearing debating what types of acts could be considered official versus not official. Sauer conceded that some of Trump’s alleged conduct in the case may not be regarded as official acts.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Sauer about his claim that a president must be impeached in the Senate prior to being criminally prosecuted.
“There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench,” Barrett said, “and I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment.”
Oral arguments lasted more than two hours on Thursday. The Supreme Court will continue public session on May 9.
Anything else?
Trump’s legal team requested acting Justice Juan Merchan postpone the New York trial on Thursday to allow Trump to appear at the Supreme Court hearing. His request was denied, Blaze News previously reported.
Merchan told Trump’s attorney, “Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal, and I can certainly appreciate why your client would want to be there, but a trial in New York Supreme Court … is also a big deal.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Source: TheBlaze
