The U.S. Supreme Court has recently taken up the immunity case of former President Donald Trump. Emulating an audacious claim once made by Richard Nixon that if a sitting president does it, it isn’t a crime, Trump alleges that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office unless they are impeached and convicted by the Senate. The hearing for the case will be held on April 22, with the criminal trial currently on pause (Slate).
While it seems improbable that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Trump, there is an argument to say that conservative justices on the Court have used this case as a delaying tactic to push Trump’s trials past the election. This tactic may well allow Trump to retake the presidency. Despite the remote chances of this immunity claim being turned into a constitutionally backable defense, its implications on future presidencies, and the credibility of the Supreme Court, are substantial (Above The Law).
This move on the part of the Supreme Court may inadvertently shape the outcome of the November elections. With the case capturing the nation’s attention, the race could end up becoming a referendum on the rule of law in the Trump era. If Trump loses the election, this monumental claim might hardly matter (Twitter).
Finally, it’s noteworthy that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump’s case has put conservative justices under the spotlight and left them facing public scrutiny. The recent actions of conservative justices, such as refusing to recuse themselves from cases in which they have vested interests, detract from the Court’s credibility and intensify existing scepticism (Above The Law). Whether or not these justices expected the Supreme Court’s procedural decisions to pass without much ado, they will soon have to reconcile themselves with a newly critical public eye.