Firstly, there is certainly no prospect of a quick decision. Given the issues discussed before the justices and the apparent divisions among them, it is almost certain that a decision will not be issued until the court concludes its business in late June or early July.
Second, the final outcome seems unlikely to provide definitive rules that would allow Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal charges against Trump to proceed quickly to trial. To be sure, the majority may not fully accept Mr. Trump’s bold claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his official actions as president. On Thursday, President Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, reiterated his claim that the president could send a sixth SEAL team to assassinate political opponents.
“What would happen if the president ordered the military to stage a coup?” Justice Elena Kagan asked him. “There’s a good chance” it is an official act, Sauer said. Under his bizarre interpretation of the Constitution, the only way a former president could be charged with a crime is if Congress impeaches and convicts him.
But even if they’re not willing to go that far, at least some judges are considering public and private actions that could narrow the scope of the case against Trump and require additional pretrial proceedings. They seem to be worried about distinguishing between the two. This doesn’t completely eliminate the possibility of a pre-election trial — Trump’s lawyers made a key concession Thursday that many of the allegations against the former president relate to private conduct. Precipitating further litigation and, in turn, further delays.
Third, at least some of the justices seemed interested in a new development first raised by Trump’s lawyers in their Supreme Court brief. The question is whether the criminal law under which Mr. Trump was charged can constitutionally be applied to the prosecution of the president. clearly state that they apply to the president. Typically, defendants who fail to bring claims in lower courts are considered to have waived them, but Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh in particular seemed inclined to let them proceed and rule in Trump’s favor. .
Fundamental questions like these can determine the outcome of your case. However, in oral argument, trump vs usa The question is primarily about the broader question of whether holding a criminal president above the law or exposing a non-criminal president to the risk of frivolous and vindictive prosecution by his successor poses greater risks. It was filled with problems.
This is the essence of President Trump’s immunity claim. “Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there would be no presidency as we know it,” Sauer told the court in his opening statement. “The fact that a president can be indicted, tried, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions soon after leaving office means that bold, fearless action can be taken at a time when we need it most. Imminent threats will distort the president’s decision-making.”
This is typical Trump exaggeration. No president before Trump believed he would be immune from prosecution after he left office – that’s why Richard M. Nixon accepted a pardon – and they got along just fine. If Mr. Trump succeeds in his second term and succeeds in carrying out his plan to go after his political opponents, the only president this country has to fear is Mr. Trump himself.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson never mentioned President Trump, but when he pressed Sauer on the subject, he couldn’t help but keep Sauer’s possible reelection in mind. “I think they’re worried that the president is getting cold,” Jackson said. “If the president had not been sober, we would have had the opposite serious problem. You know, we’re trying to figure out what’s going to stand in the way of turning this country around if you can come to power knowing that you can’t commit a crime without being punished. We’ve entered the heart of crime.”
What was surprising and disconcerting about Thursday’s debate was that while there is no way to know whether the conservative justices were trying to protect President Trump or were motivated by considerations of executive power, conservatives The degree to which the justices appeared to be prioritizing presidential flexibility over presidential accountability.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said, “While I am not concerned about this case, I am concerned about the future use of criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations of motive.” Kavanaugh warned that “the fear going forward… is that it will circulate and be used against the current president, or the next president, and the next president, and the next president after that.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested from top to bottom that trying President Trump for trying to overturn the election could undermine democracy. “If an incumbent who loses a close, hard-fought election knows that the real possibility after leaving office is that the president will be criminally prosecuted by his political opponents, that leaves us in a vicious cycle. “Wouldn’t that be a problem?” he asked. Will it destabilize our country’s functioning as a democratic nation? ”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave a powerful response. One of her beliefs that underpins democracy is that “no one is above the law, in public or private conduct,” a phrase that is somewhat suspect here. “It’s about inspiring people to believe,” she said.
You’ll definitely find out, if not right away.
