SCOTUS Hears Arguments Over Trump's Immunity Claim

Improve the News Foundation -
0:00
/1861

Facts

  • The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Thursday heard arguments over former Pres. Donald Trump's claims to immunity for acts carried out while in office, with Chief Justice John Roberts among the justices who suggested the case could be sent back to a lower court.1
  • If Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election, is granted immunity, special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump for allegedly conspiring to overturn Pres. Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election win would end.1
  • Previously, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February rejected Trump's immunity claim by a 3-0 vote.2
  • While the justices seemed skeptical about Trump's claims of blanket immunity, some conservative justices — including Justice Amy Coney Barrett — devoted much of their questioning to determining what acts could be considered Trump's private or 'official acts.'3
  • Trump didn't attend the proceedings, but prior to entering the courtroom for his Manhattan trial, he reiterated his claims of immunity, saying, 'If you don't have immunity, you're not going to do anything. You're just going to become a ceremonial president.'2
  • If the justices rule within the next couple of months, a trial could start this summer. But if they send it back to the lower courts, holding a trial before the November election would be unlikely.4

Sources: 1Associated Press, 2CBC, 3NBC and 4ABC News.

Narratives

  • Anti-Trump narrative, as provided by Axios.com. The conservative justices seemed to be stretching to find ways they could grant Trump some immunity or reasons to bump this case back to the lower court. Either choice would be a victory for the former president because — as in all his criminal cases — Trump's goal is to delay all trials until he might be elected or inaugurated as president and can quash them all.
  • Pro-Trump narrative, as provided by Daily Caller. This isn't about delaying this case, it's about making sure a president has the necessary freedom to act without fear of prosecution. It's easy for any prosecutor to obtain an indictment, and the US system can't rely on all prosecutors acting in good faith. There may need to be a test to determine which acts by a president are personal or official — which is one thing that might be better settled by a lower court.

Predictions