WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether presidents have complete criminal immunity, delaying one of the most consequential legal decisions in U.S. history and likely paving the way for a federal trial of former President Donald Trump on election interference charges before November.
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate who is involved in several criminal cases, faces sentencing in a New York state court as early as July. Conviction for 34 crimes for falsifying business documents in the run-up to the 2016 elections.
The Supreme Court judges heard oral arguments in the immunity case on last day of their term of office, April 25, and have held the case in their hands since the end of February.
The rulings are expected to be released on Thursday and Friday, but the court is not announcing in advance which rulings they will be. Trump is expected to debate President Joe Biden at the CNN studios in Atlanta on Thursday evening as the presidential election campaign is in full swing.
The question before the court is whether US presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed during their time in the Oval Office.
Trump referred the matter to the Supreme Court after a lower court in January rejected his claim that he should not face federal charges, claim He planned to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by deliberately spreading falsehoods, creating false electoral lists in several states, and inciting his supporters who violently stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Jack Smith, Special Agent in Charge of the US Department of Justice urged The Supreme Court in December to skip the appeals court and speed up a decision on the president’s immunity. At that time, Trump’s trial on election fraud charges was still scheduled for March 4. The judges rejected Smith’s request.
De facto immunity
Critics of the Supreme Court accuse the conservative judges – including three appointed by Trump – of deliberately delaying the decision in order to keep Trump out of the courtroom before the November election.
“By preventing [a] “By putting him on trial before the election, they have given him de facto immunity, regardless of what the final verdict turns out to be,” Michael Podhorzer, president of the Defending Democracy Project, told States Newsroom on Wednesday.
The anti-Trump advocacy organization has been closely monitoring the legal proceedings against the former president.
Podhorzer accused the judges of not taking up the case in December.
“Then they waited as long as they could to decide now, and they created this crisis. They basically put their thumb on the scale in this election,” he said.
Definition of “official acts”
The judges were skeptical in April when Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer argued for a broad definition of what constitutes a president’s “official acts.”
In his view, almost anything done during a president’s term would be considered an official act. This includes Trump’s efforts to obstruct Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
In breathtaking moments during Trump’s appeal, Sauer argued before Supreme Court justices and a lower appeals panel that presidents could order the assassination of a political rival without facing legal responsibility – that is, unless the rival is first impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate.
Trump and supporters of the presidential immunity argument claim that allowing the prosecution of former presidents would open a “Pandora’s box” of political attacks by opponents.
you too accuse Smith accused Trump of political interference for bringing charges against him as he sought a second term. Smith announced the indictment on four counts in early August 2023.
Opponents of such immunity, including several former Republican government members, meanwhile warn of “frightening possibilities“A president should be immune from the threat of criminal liability.
Several conservative justices suggested that the case should be sent back to the lower courts, where a clear line could be drawn between official actions and private conduct.
This could take weeks or months, further reducing the remote possibility that Trump’s election interference trial will take place before the November election.
Podhorzer said a further delay would lead to a “showdown between the normal functioning of the criminal justice system, which would put Trump on trial, [and] the normal course of our presidential election, which would not interfere with Trump’s campaign opportunities.”
All proceedings in the lower courts have been stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
