The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. This case, scheduled for Thursday, arises from Trump’s efforts to have charges against him dismissed. Lower courts have ruled that he cannot claim immunity for actions that allegedly interfered with the election results. Trump is facing multiple criminal cases, including one related to hush money payments to a porn star. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine if a trial can be held before the November election.
This case poses a unique question: does a former president enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed during their tenure? The Supreme Court has never had to answer this question before, as no former president has faced criminal charges. Both sides of the case point to the absence of previous prosecutions to support their arguments. Trump’s lawyers argue that presidents would lose their independence and be unable to function in office if they knew their actions could lead to criminal charges after their terms ended. On the other hand, prosecutors argue that the lack of previous charges highlights the unprecedented nature of Trump’s alleged actions.
The lawyers on both sides are invoking the case of Richard Nixon, who resigned the presidency in the Watergate scandal almost 50 years ago. Trump’s team cites Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 Supreme Court case that held former presidents cannot be sued in civil cases for their actions while in office. However, Smith’s team argues that this decision only applies to civil lawsuits and not the enforcement of federal criminal laws. They also mention the court’s decision that forced Nixon to turn over incriminating White House tapes as evidence in the prosecutions of his top aides. Prosecutors also reference President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon and Nixon’s acceptance of it as an acknowledgment of potential criminal liability.
Timing is a crucial factor in this case. Trump has been pushing to delay the trial until after the election, potentially allowing him to drop the case if he regains the presidency. Prosecutors, on the other hand, are urging the Supreme Court to make a quick decision so that trial preparations can resume. It could take up to three months after the court’s decision for the trial to begin. If the court’s decision is handed down in late June, there may not be enough time to start the trial before the election.
Representing Trump is D. John Sauer, an experienced lawyer who has previously won a Supreme Court case in an execution case. Sauer has also filed briefs asking the Supreme Court to reject Biden’s victory in 2020. On the opposing side is Michael Dreeben, a former Justice Department official who has argued over 100 cases at the Supreme Court. Dreeben was also part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The nine justices hearing the case include three nominated by Trump – Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. However, it’s Justice Clarence Thomas, nominated decades before Trump’s presidency, who has generated controversy. Thomas’s wife attended the rally that preceded the Capitol riot and has called for the reversal of the 2020 election results. Some have called for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving Trump and the Capitol riot, but he has chosen to participate in all proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have far-reaching implications for future presidents and their potential criminal liability after leaving office. The arguments presented by both sides highlight the unprecedented nature of this situation and the need for a clear ruling on presidential immunity. As the court moves quickly to hear this case, its decision will shape the outcome of Trump’s legal battles and potentially impact future elections.
