{"id":2230721,"date":"2024-04-26T07:05:02","date_gmt":"2024-04-26T11:05:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-agrees-presidents-do-have-immunity-from-criminal-prosecutions-but-to-what-degree\/"},"modified":"2024-04-26T10:08:00","modified_gmt":"2024-04-26T14:08:00","slug":"scotus-agrees-presidents-do-have-immunity-from-criminal-prosecutions-but-to-what-degree","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-agrees-presidents-do-have-immunity-from-criminal-prosecutions-but-to-what-degree\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Confirms Presidential Immunity from Prosecution: What&#8217;s the Limit?"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fscotus-agrees-presidents-do-have-immunity-from-criminal-prosecutions-but-to-what-degree%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2230721&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Supreme Court debated presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in the case of \u2062Trump v. United \u2063States. Justices questioned the extent of immunity for official acts, \u2063citing the lack\u200b of direct legal guidance on \u2063the matter. \u2063Differing\u2062 views emerged among the parties and justices,\u200d highlighting the complexity of defining\u2062 immunity for former presidents. \u200dKey\u200c arguments focused on presidential powers, constitutional provisions, and the implications for criminal proceedings.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"article-content\">\n<p>The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday morning in the case of <em>Trump v. United States<\/em> on the question of whether and to what extent a former president of the United States enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the justices seemed dubious about both parties\u2019 positions in this complex and largely uncharted area of law. No statute, prior Supreme Court precedent, or provision of the Constitution speaks directly to this issue. In 1982, the Supreme Court, in <em>Nixon v. Fitzgerald<\/em>, ruled that presidents enjoy immunity from civil litigation based on their official acts. The court, in a 5-4 ruling, grounded the immunity in the constitutional separation of powers. It reasoned that it would be inappropriate for the judicial branch to inquire into the reasons for presidential decisions for purposes of holding the president personally liable for damages. The court emphasized the unique nature and responsibilities of the president in arriving at this conclusion.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2-long d-flex justify-content-center\" style=\"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; \" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-1892759519\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1379703300879-0\" class=\"mb-30\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-660f2abe4f49dec734907b0dacbc017f fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-660f2abe4f49dec734907b0dacbc017f\"><\/div>\n<p>In Trump\u2019s case, the parties and the justices all agreed on certain points. First, that purely private conduct by the president, which is allegedly criminal, could be prosecuted. Trump\u2019s lawyer also conceded that campaign conduct, acting like an \u201coffice seeker\u201d rather than an \u201coffice holder,\u201d was private, rather than official, conduct.<\/p>\n<p>Second, that the president has some constitutional powers that are exclusive to the presidency, such as the power to grant pardons, and therefore acts carrying out those powers simply cannot be criminalized by Congress or prosecuted by prosecutors. These were referred to as \u201ccore\u201d areas of presidential power throughout the argument. Beyond these two points, the parties and the justices wildly diverged in their views, from the applicable nomenclature to the scope of any immunity, to the procedural mechanisms for implementing it in the courts.<\/p>\n<p>Technically, the question before the court is: Whether and, if so, to what extent does a former <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-mulling-briefs-from-trump-allies-and-ex-officials-in-immunity-bid\/\" title=\"Supreme Court reviewing requests for immunity from Trump allies and former officials in pending cases\">president enjoy presidential immunity<\/a> from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trump-immunity-issue-at-supreme-court-could-spur-further-trial-delays\/\" title=\"Supreme Court's Trump immunity case may cause more trial delays\">involve official acts<\/a> during his tenure in office?<\/p>\n<p>Trump\u2019s lawyer, John Sauer, urged the justices to find that former presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution in the same way that the earlier <em>Fitzgerald<\/em> case applied in civil cases. That ruling would preclude criminal prosecution for any act that came within the \u201couter perimeter\u201d of the scope of a president\u2019s official acts, regardless of the reason, motive, intent, purpose, etc. for taking those acts. Sauer argued that an objective analysis should be used by the courts to determine if the conduct was or was not within the scope of the official responsibilities of the president. In other words, the analysis depends on whether the president\u2019s actions could conceivably have been within the scope of his authority and not on what the president actually had in mind.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-02196f6e91c0c7ba6a79db693e9af8cd fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-6\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-02196f6e91c0c7ba6a79db693e9af8cd\"><\/div>\n<p>By contrast, Special Counsel Jack Smith\u2019s lawyer, Michael Dreeben, argued that the Constitution does not provide any criminal immunity for the president, unlike the immunity for \u201cspeech and debate\u201d provided for Congress. He argued that, instead, a former president can raise a case-by-case \u201cchallenge\u201d to any indictment against him on the grounds that the specific acts alleged cannot be the basis for criminal charges under the Constitution. Dreeben told the high court he was speaking for the Department of Justice, not just the special counsel\u2019s office, in taking this position.<\/p>\n<p>In an unusual move, Trump\u2019s counsel did not offer any rebuttal argument, apparently deciding that, after two and a half hours of argument, further discussion would not affect the views of any justice.<\/p>\n<p>The leftist block of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/judge-in-young-dolph-case-removes-himself-based-on-appeals-court-order\/\" title=\"Judge recuses himself from Young Dolph case per appeals court order.\">court expressed concerns<\/a> that Sauer\u2019s position rendered a president \u201cabove the law\u201d and would remove any restraints a serving president might feel to abide by the law while in office to avoid criminal prosecution later. By contrast, most of the conservative justices appeared to be more worried about setting a precedent that former presidents can be put on trial for prior official actions, thereby incentivizing political prosecutions.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Kavanaugh, in particular, analogized the situation to the politicization that occurred under the now-expired independent counsel statute and roiled the administrations of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton. Justice Barrett expressed concern about such cases being brought in state courts, where many of the structural safeguards that Dreeben claimed would tend to prevent such cases would not exist.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-e4338e8a1d876e58f31849bb0e7e8c39 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-10\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-e4338e8a1d876e58f31849bb0e7e8c39\"><\/div>\n<p>The justices probed both lawyers about how their respective positions would apply in a practical sense. For example, what procedures would be used, when in the criminal process could their respective proposals be used, and whether there would be appellate review immediately or only after conviction, etc. Justices Barrett and Sotomayor particularly were interested in these technical issues. Along with Justice Jackson, they also focused on the statutory \u201cclear statement\u201d principle, which is often invoked by the DOJ and its Office of Legal Counsel to limit the effect of generally applicable criminal statutes to the presidency out of a concern for not impeding the legitimate functions of the office. While not directly addressing the question of whether immunity exists, these technical and application concerns sought to flesh out each party\u2019s proposed conclusion on the immunity issue.<\/p>\n<p>There were some notable fireworks in the questioning. For example, Chief Justice Roberts got the questioning of the special counsel off with a bang by stating that he did not agree with the D.C. Circuit\u2019s reasoning that any criminal charge brought by a prosecutor against a former president is necessarily legal. Evidently aghast at the lower court\u2019s conclusion, he demanded to know why the court should not issue an opinion that simply reversed that \u201ctautological\u201d conclusion.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Gorsuch, as he has in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/lia-thomas-blasts-teammates-as-fake-feminists-over-perceived-lack-of-support\/\" title=\"Lia Thomas blasts teammates as 'fake' feminists over perceived lack of support\">past arguments<\/a>, formulated a hypothetical about \u201cmostly peaceful protests.\u201d He demanded to know if a president leading such a protest that delayed the vote on a piece of legislation could be charged under the federal obstruction statute after leaving office since such activities would lie outside the \u201ccore actions\u201d Dreeben conceded were non-prosecutable. Gorsuch also scoffed at Dreeben\u2019s suggestion that former presidents did not enjoy \u201cimmunity,\u201d but could instead raise an \u201cas applied Article II challenge\u201d to say their conduct was sufficiently official and not subject to prosecution. He expressed the view that by whatever name, the concept at issue is \u201cimmunity\u201d of some form.<\/p>\n<p>In general, it appears the court as a whole is prepared to agree with former President Trump that there is at least some form of immunity for former presidents from criminal prosecution, regardless of the label the justices put on it. At the same time, it is clear the justices have very different ideas about the scope of this \u201cimmunity,\u201d how it should actually apply at the trial level, and whether a trial court decision adverse to the former president can be appealed before trial.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the most likely result in this case appears to be a decision rendered with a long opinion and many concurrences and dissents, in whole or in part.<\/p>\n<p>As to when that decision will be forthcoming, it is unclear when the justices will rule. Ordinarily, absent extenuating circumstances, they would do so by the end of their current term, which closes June 30.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-2288582da14fd404aaf82c6f1a093536 fdrlst__b89e9-after-post-content\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-2288582da14fd404aaf82c6f1a093536\"><\/div>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">    \t\t\t\t\t   \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today, the Supreme Court debated Trump v. United States, examining a former president&#8217;s immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions. Justices expressed skepticism towards both arguments in this intricate case<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2513,"featured_media":2230722,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/50664501548_bedfe63661_o.jpeg","fifu_image_alt":"SCOTUS Confirms Presidential Immunity from Prosecution: What&#8217;s the Limit?","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2230721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/50664501548_bedfe63661_o.jpeg","fifu_image_alt":"SCOTUS Confirms Presidential Immunity from Prosecution: What&#8217;s the Limit?","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2230721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2513"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2230721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2230721\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2230722"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2230721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2230721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2230721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}