Topline
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal charges for trying to overturn the 2020 election, with the ex-president’s attorney D. John Sauer doubling down on claims that presidents have sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office—even if that includes assassinating political rivals.
Key Facts
Sauer argued to the Supreme Court Thursday that “there can be no presidency as we know it” if former presidents aren’t granted broad immunity from criminal charges for official acts taken while they’re in office.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer if that would include granting ex-presidents immunity for ordering the military to assassinate a political rival—after the attorney previously told a federal appeals court he believed that should be subject to immunity—and Sauer doubled down on his previous argument, suggesting it would be eligible for immunity “depending on the” circumstances.
The attorney also said it would depend on the circumstances when presented with the hypothetical possibility of a president ordering a coup, saying it “could well be” an official act that would be subject to immunity.
Justices met Sauer’s comments with skepticism, with even right-leaning Justice Samuel Alito questioning whether Trump’s “very robust” definition of immunity is “necessary,” while Justice Elena Kagan told Sauer his argument about the hypothetical coup sounded like he was saying, “Under my test it’s an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn’t it.”
Chief Critic
The drafters of the Constitution “were reacting to a monarch who claims to be above the law,” Kagan noted Thursday as she challenged Sauer’s arguments that presidents are given broad criminal immunity. “Wasn’t the whole point that the president is not supposed to be above the law?”
What To Watch For
It’s unclear when justices will rule on Trump’s immunity claims. When they do will determine when Trump’s federal election case goes to trial, as the case remains on pause while the immunity appeal plays out. A quick ruling by the court could allow the case to go to trial before the November election—with some Trump critics pegging May 20 as the last day the court could rule—while a ruling closer to the end of the court’s term in late June could mean a trial wouldn’t begin until the fall.
Key Background
Trump faces four felony charges in the federal election case, as federal prosecutors indicted him for conspiracy to defraud the U.S., obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. The ex-president has pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed the criminal cases against him are “witch hunts” designed to hurt his presidential campaign. Trump has frequently claimed to have immunity in both civil and criminal cases against him, making the claim in all of his four criminal cases as well as civil suits seeking to hold him liable for the January 6 riot. All of his arguments have failed in court thus far, and Trump asked the Supreme Court to hear the immunity dispute after district and appeals court judges refused to side with him.
