With the 2024 presidential election polarizing, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday weighed in on whether a former president-turned-Republican nominee can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to stay in power after the last election. is raising the issue.
Donald J. Trump v. United States was brought about by similarly unprecedented actions by former President Donald Trump after he narrowly lost to Joe Biden in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. It raises unprecedented constitutional questions for the court. The popularity vote was 7 million votes.
The results prompted special counsel Jack Smith to file a federal lawsuit this year with four felonies, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding, alleging that Trump tried to overturn the electoral vote count that certified Biden’s victory. It may decide whether or not to go to trial.
President Trump, who maintains his innocence, is seeking to quash the lawsuit, arguing that as a former president he enjoys “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for any “official actions” he took while in office. . He is the first American president, current or former, to face criminal charges.
“If a president is criminally prosecuted for his official conduct after he leaves office, he cannot function and the office itself cannot maintain its essential independence,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in their opening brief to the high court.
“If impunity is denied, all future presidents will be effectively incapacitated by intimidation and extortion while in office, and will be subject to years of post-inauguration trauma at the hands of their political opponents,” they argued. .
Two courts, including a unanimous three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, firmly rejected the former president’s claim of immunity.
The committee stated, “Former President Trump became the people’s Trump by taking on the defense of all other criminal defendants.” “Former President Trump had no lawful discretion to disobey federal criminal law, and he will be held accountable in court for his actions.”
The appeals court warned that if President Trump’s constitutional theory is accepted, it would put the president above the law and “break down the separation of powers.”
In his brief to the high court, special counsel Smith argued that Trump’s claims have no historical precedent and undermine the Founders’ vision of a presidency with restrained powers.
“The effective functioning of the office of the president does not require that a former president be exempt from responsibility for these alleged violations of federal criminal law,” he wrote to the justices. “On the contrary, a fundamental principle of our constitutional order is that no one, including the president, is above the law.”
A trial date in Smith’s federal election lawsuit against Trump was originally set for March 4 in U.S. District Court, but it was postponed pending a final Supreme Court ruling. A decision on the exemption claim is expected to be rendered before July, or as early as mid-May.
The justices fully upheld the appeals court’s ruling, potentially paving the way for a trial this summer, clarifying which cases are and are not eligible for immunity, and sending cases to lower courts. It is also possible that a middle-of-the-road approach could be taken. For future procedures. Such an outcome could eliminate the possibility of a trial before the November elections.
Most legal analysts believe it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority and three Trump appointees, will uphold Trump’s sweeping claim of “absolute immunity.” ing. In a 2020 ruling, the same court rejected a similar immunity claim by Trump, who sought to deny a grand jury subpoena for his tax returns.
An ABC News/Ipsos poll late last year found that a majority of Americans (51%) said they wanted to know more about the federal government’s actions related to President Trump on January 6 and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. We believe the charges are very serious.
Just over half of respondents (52%) believe Trump should have been charged with a crime in the incident, and 32% said he should not have been charged. At the same time, a poll conducted using Ipsos Knowledge Panel found that 46% of people believe the accusations against Trump are politically motivated, while 40% think they are not. It has become.
President Trump’s legal team acknowledged that a president who has been impeached, convicted and removed from office could later be criminally prosecuted for similar conduct, but the impeachment process does not allow for constitutionally authorized presidential conduct. It claims to be the only way to check.
Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives in 2021 for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, but was acquitted by the Senate after leaving office. The former president maintains that his actions were part of a legally legitimate effort to ensure election integrity.
Smith argues that the former president has never been immune from prosecution and was always aware of the possibility of prosecution. In court filings, he cited former President Richard Nixon’s acceptance of a pardon from President Gerald Ford as evidence that he believed Mr. Nixon could be prosecuted after leaving office.
While Supreme Court precedent limits civil suits against the president, the special counsel argues that criminal matters are different, and there are no legal protections in the system to prevent partisan harassment and protect due process. He claimed that it was also heavily established.
“Even if liability cannot be assumed for official conduct, the case should be remanded for trial and the district court should rule on evidence and instructions in accordance with this court’s decision,” Smith wrote in the justices’ brief. ” he wrote. [Trump] After final judgments, appellate review of those judgments may be sought, if necessary. ”
After Thursday’s oral argument, the justices will vote in weekly closed session meetings and begin writing their opinions. They are scheduled to be released by the end of the court’s term in June.
