SCOTUS Hears Arguments From Trump On Presidential Immunity
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court met to hear arguments regarding former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity. The case stems from a federal lawsuit brought by former Apprentice star Summer Zervos, who alleges that Trump defamed her by denying her allegations of sexual misconduct. Trump’s lawyers have argued that the president is immune from civil lawsuits while in office and that the case should be dismissed. However, a lower court ruled that Trump is not immune from such lawsuits, and the Supreme Court is now considering whether or not to uphold that decision.
During the arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, raised a question that seemed to challenge Trump’s claim of immunity. She suggested that granting immunity to the president could lead to future presidents committing crimes without consequences. Jackson stated, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?”
In response, Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, cited the history of presidential immunity and the fear of “factional strife” leading to an unconstitutional prosecution of a current or former president. He argued that the U.S. has operated under a system of presidential immunity for over 234 years and that this has prevented the presidential office from turning into a “crime center.”
However, Justice Jackson pushed back against this belief, questioning why President Richard Nixon was pardoned for his alleged crimes in office. She asked, “What was up with the pardon for President Nixon? I think that if everybody thought that presidents couldn’t be prosecuted, then what was that about?” To this, Sauer responded that Nixon was under investigation for both private and public conduct at the time.
Trump lawyer John Sauer just humiliated Ketanji Brown Jackson:
“The regime you've described is the one we've operated under for over 234 years.” pic.twitter.com/PB2bTnf0rG
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 25, 2024
The Supreme Court also considered the potential implications of presidential immunity in situations that were not previously addressed, such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II. Justice Samuel Alito asked whether Roosevelt could have been charged with a crime for this action if it had been committed today. U.S. attorney Michael Dreeben replied, “Yes,” citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the travel ban.
Throughout the hearing, Trump’s attorneys argued that the presidency would be under threat if the president could face prosecution for every official act. They wrote in their opening brief to the high court, “The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office.” They argued that without immunity, future presidents could be subjected to “blackmail and extortion” while in office and face “post-office trauma” at the hands of political opponents.
This case has critical implications for former President Trump, who is currently facing multiple criminal investigations in New York. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision, Trump could potentially face civil lawsuits for any alleged misconduct while in office. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of presidential immunity, these investigations may be halted. However, legal experts say that even if Trump is granted immunity from civil lawsuits, it would not protect him from criminal prosecution.
Outside the courtroom, a small group of supporters of the former president gathered to show their support for him. Among them was John Rich, a country music star and longtime friend of Trump. Speaking to reporters, Rich said, “This case is about whether or not being president is a part-time non-criminal job or whether being president is a full-time comprehensive job that has some special executive privilege with it.”
It is uncertain when the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the case, but with a conservative majority on the bench, legal experts have predicted that the court may uphold Trump’s claims of immunity. However, some experts also believe that the court could issue a narrow ruling that would only apply to this particular case, leaving the door open for future cases against sitting or former presidents. The decision will have significant consequences not just for Trump but also for all future presidents and the legal system as a whole. For now, the public awaits the court’s decision on the matter.