The US Supreme Court heard oral presentations on April 25, 2024, in a case that can change the course of American history. This is the case Trump vs. the United Stateswhich asked justices to make a decision whether and to what extent former President Donald Trump — or another president — may be prosecuted for actions committed while in office.
The case particularly pertains to special prosecutor Jack Smith accuses Trump of attempting to undermine the 2020 presidential election. But the court's decision may also apply to larger questions on the bounds of presidential power and the role of the legal system in limiting executive actions.
Interview with political editor Naomi Schalit Constitutional lawyer Claire Wofforda political scientist on the College of Charleston who said the impact of the case went beyond Trump's case and affected “how future presidencies might work.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch said, “We're writing a rule for the ages.” The justices seemed well aware that the case before them was about former President Donald Trump, however it was also about lots greater than that, right?
I’d absolutely agree with that. The justices expressed several concerns in regards to the impact of the choice on this case. Several of the justices, across the ideological spectrum, were very concerned in regards to the practical implications of granting some extent of immunity to a president or not granting immunity to the president.
Justice Samuel Alito seemed genuinely concerned that the president might be politically persecuted if he weren’t protected by immunity. Alito spoke of the president being in a “particularly precarious situation.” Judge Brett Kavanaugh also appeared to contemplate the implications of a finding of the president’s lack of immunity, raising the specter of what he called “cycles” of prosecutions.
On the opposite hand, several more liberal justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan questioned what it will mean if the president actually had immunity – whether that may mean unfettered executive power. Jackson, particularly, talked about how we shouldn't worry that the president would soften his actions if he were potentially prosecuted.
“I think we would have a significant opposite problem if the president wasn't relaxed,” she said. She said a president could take office “in the knowledge that there is no risk of punishment for committing crimes.” She said: “I'm trying to understand what the reason is for making the Oval Office the seat of criminal activity in this country.”
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
It gave the look of everyone from Trump and Justice Department lawyers to the judges themselves wanted to seek out a middle ground that may grant the president some, but not complete, immunity.
It didn't appear to me that any of the justices desired to conclude that the president was absolutely immune or that the president could all the time be prosecuted. There will likely be a gray area through which a few of what a president does could also be criminal, but others may not. There was a whole lot of forwards and backwards about what line must be drawn.
The judges need to give you the option to make a distinction in order that a president can obviously be held criminally responsible in certain extreme situations. But a few of what he does simply needs to be considered a part of his core job as a frontrunner and is at his discretion.
If they go this route, they may try to formulate a legal regime that attracts the road between what’s protected against prosecution and what is just not. There were many options for this line that were placed on the table in the course of the argument. It doesn't appear to me that one or the opposite clear position was taken within the dispute. But if the judges tried to formulate a rule, I wouldn't expect a fast verdict.
Isn't there one other scenario where they don't go into a fancy description of what's on this side of the road and what's on that side?
Several of the justices noted that even in the event that they ruled that a few of Trump's actions were official and subsequently protected by immunity, the trial could still proceed in relation to his private actions, which each side agree on. In the top, Jackson made it clear when he asked the Justice Department attorney whether the president had taken enough private actions that the case could go to trial on those actions alone. The lawyer said yes.
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
What is the deeper meaning of today's argument when considering the role and power of the president?
Today's dispute touches on the balance of power between Congress, the chief branch and the judiciary. Trump's lawyer argued that, for reasons of functionality, the chief branch will need to have an area through which it may well act alone and that the judiciary has no strategy to monitor its activities. The case also involves broader questions on checks and balances and the way the framers intended our government to operate. In the background is the broader query of the rule of law and whether or not certain people – including those charged with implementing and executing this law – are also subject to it.
George Washington was sworn in because the nation's first president on March 4, 1797. From then until now, the concept of a president violating criminal law has not been addressed within the U.S. Supreme Court. What does that tell us?
It tells us certainly one of two things. Firstly, the system we’ve got works. This is the Justice Department's argument that the explanation we've never been in this case is because we've never had a president like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump can also be the sort of character we've never had or because presidents knew they might be prosecuted and were subsequently constrained of their behavior.
From the choice side, in fact, the argument is that we've never had this before, because nobody has ever pursued a president with such political vehemence, and nobody has ever desired to eliminate a president as badly as President Trump. I feel the apparent downside can be that this really isn't an accurate reading of American history. Many presidents were hated by their political opponents, who tried to eliminate them in a method or one other.
We are at a turning point in history where the interface between the chief and judiciary is being put to an unprecedented test. And I hope that the judiciary does its job and the system stays intact.
I wish there was one other tool the court could use to resolve this query and that so many individuals didn't feel just like the fate of our government and the soundness of our system were at stake.
Is it?
This is the case when the court doesn’t do its job. If it doesn't clearly state that the president is just not above the law, then I feel we’ve got a significant issue.
image credit : theconversation.com