WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether presidents enjoy blanket immunity from prosecution, delaying one of the most significant legal decisions in U.S. history and likely closing the door on former President Donald Trump’s November federal election interference trial.
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee embroiled in multiple criminal cases, faces sentencing in New York state as early as July conviction for 34 offences for falsifying business documents prior to the 2016 elections.
Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments on the immunity issue last day their term, on April 25, and held the matter in their hands from the end of February.
The opinions are due on Thursday and Friday, but the court is not saying which ones in advance. Trump is set debate President Joe Biden on Thursday evening at CNN’s studios in Atlanta as the presidential campaign is in full swing.
The question before the court is whether U.S. presidents are immune from criminal liability for any official actions they take while in the Oval Office.
Trump took the case to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled otherwise in January. rejected his claim that he should not face federal charges, claim planned to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by knowingly spreading lies, conspiring to create fraudulent voter rolls in several states, and inciting supporters who violently attacked the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
US Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith persuaded Supreme Court in December to jump the appeals court level and expedite a ruling on the presidential immunity case. At the time, Trump’s trial on election sedition charges was set for March 4. The justices rejected Smith’s request.
“De facto” immunity.
Supreme Court critics accuse the Supreme Court’s conservative justices, including three of Trump’s nominees, of deliberately delaying the ruling to keep Trump out of the courtroom before the November election.
“By preventing a trial before the election, they have effectively given him immunity, regardless of what the final decision is,” Michael Podhorzer, president of the Defending Democracy Project, told States Newsroom on Wednesday.
The anti-Trump human rights organization is closely monitoring the former president’s court cases.
Podhorzer accused the judges of not dealing with the case in December.
“They then waited as long as they could to now make a ruling on this and created this crisis. They are essentially putting their thumb on the scale in this election,” he said.
Definition of “official acts”
In April, the justices appeared skeptical when Trump lawyer D. John Sauer argued for a broad definition of what constitutes “official acts” by the president.
In his opinion, almost everything that happens during the president’s term should be considered official action, including Trump’s attempts to interfere with Congress’ certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election.
During Trump’s appeal, Sauer, in moments of bewilderment, argued to Supreme Court justices and lower appellate courts that presidents can order the assassination of a political rival without facing legal liability — unless, of course, that rival is first impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate.
Trump and supporters of the presidential immunity argument say allowing criminal prosecutions of former presidents will open a “Pandora’s box” of political attacks from opponents.
They too accuse Smith on political interference charges for charging Trump as he faces a second term. Blacksmith announced four-count indictment filed in early August 2023
Meanwhile, opponents of such immunity, including several from previous Republican administrations, have warned of “terrifying possibilities“whether the president should be free from the threat of criminal liability.
Several conservative judges suggested that the case should be returned to lower courts, where it would be possible to draw a clear line between official actions and private conduct.
That could eat up weeks or months, further reducing the likelihood that Trump’s election interference trial will take place before the November election.
Podhorzer said a further delay would lead to “a confrontation between the ordinary function of the criminal justice system, which would result in Trump being convicted, and the normal course of the presidential election, in which there would be no impediment to Trump’s ability to campaign.”
All proceedings in lower courts have been suspended pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.
