The US Supreme Court recently held oral arguments concerning the case of Trump v. US, marking a significant moment in American law. The case questions whether a president possesses absolute immunity for actions performed while in office, upon leaving office. The hours-long proceedings drew an attentive crowd, with only a handful of protestors present early that morning.
The oral arguments scheduled for an hour but lasted nearly three hours. Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, kicked off the proceedings, revolving his argument around the unique situation the case presents. Sauer argued that 234 years of American history saw no president prosecuted for his official acts, signifying the importance of the concept of presidential immunity.
Sauer’s argument led to a critical conversation discussing the implications and potential consequences of this case. For instance, Sauer highlighted the question of whether President Obama could face murder charges for ordering drone strikes overseas leading to the killing of Americans. Sauer suggested that precedence of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution has enabled the presidency as it currently exists. This instance stands in stark contrast to Trump’s charges, including allegedly conspiring to defraud the US, corruptly obstructing Congress, and conspiring against the rights of US citizens to vote.
In response to these allegations, Sauer claimed that former presidents uphold “absolute immunity,” preventing their prosecution for actions undertaken while holding office. This contention invoked questions from the Justices regarding the source and breadth of this absolute immunity.
However, the court did not universally support Sauer’s argument. For instance, Justice Elena Kagan pointed out the absence of an explicit immunity clause in the Constitution and argued against the immunity inferred from the Executive Vesting Clause. This ongoing debate forms the crux of the Trump v. US case.
On behalf of the US Department of Justice, Michael Dreeben presented a counter-argument. Highlighting that the court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official, he reassured that the constitution prevents politically driven prosecution. The conversation also touched upon the limits of the executive’s core duties, which cannot be criminalized by Congress.
The legal community awaits the court’s landmark decision, which could significantly dictate the future of presidential immunity. The implications extend not just for former President Trump, but also the broader political landscape. Read the full article here.