In the final argument scheduled for its 2023-2024 term, the Supreme Court will on Thursday hear former President Donald Trump’s bid for criminal immunity. The justices will deliberate on whether Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Their answer will shape not only Trump’s trial in Washington D.C., initially slated for March 4 and presently on hold, but also determine whether his trials in Florida and Georgia can push forward. This detailed report on the case has been written by Amy Howe, first published on SCOTUSblog.
Jury selection is currently taking place in a Manhattan courtroom where Trump faces charges tied to state law violation in relation to a “hush money” payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the run up to the 2016 presidential election. However, it is worth noting that allegations at the heart of this case predate the period of Trump’s presidency.
Trump was indicted last summer under four counts stemming from the Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probe into the 2021 US Capitol attack. The indictment alleges that Trump engineered “widespread mistrust” through pervasive lies concerning election fraud, and thereafter executed three criminal conspiracies targeted at the US’ process of collecting, counting, and certifying presidential election results. Trump sought dismissal of the charges, arguing for immunity given his former presidential status. However, this was denied by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in December, a decision later upheld by the D.C. Circuit, rejecting Trump’s immunity claims and allowing the criminal case to proceed.
In response, Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking suspension of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling so that he could petition for a review of the decision. Two weeks subsequently, the justices agreed to examine the extent to which a former president is immune from prosecution for conduct linked to his official acts during his Presidency. They then accelerated the case for argument during its April argument session, and instructed the D.C. Circuit to uphold its ruling until the Supreme Court’s final decision.
In his brief at the Supreme Court on the merits, Trump warns that allowing the charges against him to continue would pose significant risk to presidential independence. He draws from a law review article by then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that a president who remains worried about an ongoing criminal investigation would significantly underperform in his role.
In contrast, Smith disputes Trump’s claim that the case against him poses a significant threat to the newfound independence of the presidency. Rather, Smith claims, the case “implicates two principles of paramount importance: the necessity of the effective functioning of the Presidency, and the equally compelling necessity of upholding the rule of law.”
The two parties have presented vastly differing views on the interpretation of presidential immunity from prosecution, the application of constitutional and criminal laws, and the relationship between impeachment and prosecution. A decision by the Supreme Court will no doubt bring significant legal and political implications.
This insightful article was originally published at Howe on the Court.