Thursday’s oral arguments in the case will center on whether Trump can claim absolute immunity for his actions while president, including criminal charges in Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s election fraud case. I was disappointed. Thankfully, most of the justices seemed skeptical that the president could avoid prosecution if he acted in the line of duty.
But things got complicated from there.Assuming that a president can be indicted for perjury to cover up a private or personal act, such as an extramarital affair, can the president be indicted? formal action? What is considered “official”? The court is Nixon vs. Fitzgerald Former presidents are immune from civil lawsuits for matters that fall within the “outer periphery” of their duties. This lenient standard allows the commander-in-chief to carry out his duties without fear of countless frivolous lawsuits.
Since there are more guards against frivolous prosecutions than frivolous lawsuits, the level of protection the executive branch needs from criminal proceedings after the presidency should be commensurately lower, but most judges are not non-existent. It seemed like he was being persuaded. Even the Department of Justice has acknowledged that the president cannot be held criminally responsible for certain “core acts” enumerated in Article II of the Constitution. Judges were considering bringing President Barack Obama before a judge and jury for conducting drone strikes against terrorists.
Meanwhile, the justices considered a hypothetical borrowed from Judge Florence Y. Pan of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals: “Can a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent?”
The court considered a number of ways to distinguish between the former and the latter hypotheses. Courts may consider the president’s motives for taking official actions and whether his intent was to serve himself rather than the people. The justices could consider whether the president reasonably should have known that a particular action was illegal, for example because of advice to the contrary from the attorney general, or whether it was too obvious. There is sex.
But amid all the nuance, the Supreme Court may have missed the point. Trump’s alleged actions surrounding the 2020 presidential election not only fail the intent test and the reasonableness test that determines whether an official act is a crime, but are also included in the prosecutor’s complaint against him. Almost every action is also a clear failure. do not have Formal. There is nothing in the president’s job description that involves certifying the winner of an election, and as Justice Department Counsel Michael Dreeben pointed out, “that’s likely the framers designed the Constitution that way.” That’s what he said. And, as opposing attorney D. John Sauer has acknowledged, he will call on Georgia’s Secretary of State to act as chief executive and “find” the votes needed to declare a false victory in the state. There is no obligation.
The Supreme Court formulates complex new standards governing criminal liability for former presidents before Trump trial Judge Tanya S. Chutkan continues with the already long-delayed trial she oversees. may require further analysis to be undertaken before Or it could simply find that Trump’s conduct described in the indictment falls outside the reasonable scope of presidential immunity. Judges may feel more comfortable with the former approach. But trying to set standards in such an opaque legal landscape can have unintended consequences, and once the president has a clearer understanding of what he can get away with, questionable administrative It may even enable action. Similarly, courts may chill legitimate administrative action, depending on the wording of such decisions.
Refusing to sort out the details of Trump’s case would not actually prevent the courts from becoming embroiled in his prosecution, but rather the opposite. Giving him the time he wants will tip the scales in a way that doesn’t for other defendants. His legal strategy was not so much to win as to delay litigation. That would allow him to order the charges to be dropped even if he were to return to the Oval Office next winter.
Trump can claim immunity before the Supreme Court only because he is a unique defendant, a former president accused of a crime. But his unique status also means that acting quickly is unusually important. After all these unusual legal procedures, the court can seem fair even if he acts as if he is just a defendant, ignoring the possibility that the delay could deprive the public of a trial. It probably won’t happen.
