12 Posts
Sort by
Supreme Court arguments in blockbuster Trump immunity case have started
From CNN's John Fritze
Arguments in what has the potential to be the most significant question before the high court this year – whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution – are now underway.
Leading off is D. John Sauer, representing Trump. A former Missouri solicitor general, Sauer will broadly argue that without some form of immunity future presidents would be inundated with prosecutions that would hamstring their ability to serve in the White House.
The justices will start quizzing Sauer with rapid-fire questions after roughly two minutes.
In historic immunity case, both sides claim mantle of history
From CNN's John Fritze
Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly cited George Washington’s farewell address in the immunity case to argue that even the Founding Fathers understood allowing presidents to be prosecuted would be bad for the nation.
But special counsel Jack Smith has drawn on another, less revered figure from American history: Richard Nixon.
Why, Smith has argued repeatedly, did Nixon need President Gerald Ford’s pardon in 1974 if he couldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place?
In part because the Constitution is silent about whether former presidents may claim immunity from criminal prosecution, attorneys for both Trump and Smith have relied heavily on history to gain an upper hand. The strategy is savvy for a Supreme Court where conservatives have placed a heavy emphasis on historical practices when it comes to disputes over abortion and guns.
Trump being Trump, some of his historic references have been more barbed. He has, for instance, argued that President Barack Obama could have been prosecuted for drone strikes that killed American citizens (but wasn’t) and that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt could have been charged with unlawfully detaining Japanese Americans during World War II (but wasn’t). At bottom, Trump’s argument is that if he doesn’t receive immunity, politically motivated prosecutions for such actions will become commonplace.
Smith has argued that none of those historic actions involved a sitting president attempting to hold onto power after losing an election.
"This has nothing to do with me" but is for future presidents, Trump says on federal immunity case
From CNN's Maureen Chowdhury
Former President Donald Trump said that the federal immunity case has nothing to do with him, but is important for future presidents, in his remarks outside of his criminal hush money trial courtroom in Manhattan on Thursday.
"I think that the Supreme Court has a very important argument before it today. I would've loved to have been there, but this judge would not let that happen. I should be there," Trump said. He added that he thinks that the president has to have immunity.
"If you don't have immunity you're not going to do anything. You're going to become a ceremonial president," Trump said. "You're not going to be taking any of the risks, both good and bad."
Trump claims that if the Supreme Court doesn't grant him immunity then other presidents will be prosecuted once they leave office.
A federal court ruled earlier this year that Trump doesn't have presidential immunity in federal election case
From CNN's Devan Cole,Hannah Rabinowitz,Holmes Lybrand,Katelyn PolantzandMarshall Cohen
Ahead of today's Supreme Court arguments, a federal appeals court ruled on February 6 that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results.
The ruling was a major blow to Trump’s key defense thus far in the federal election subversion case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith.
The former president had argued that the conduct Smith charged him over was part of his official duties as president and therefore shield him from criminal liability.
"For the purpose of this criminal case, former PresidentTrumphas become citizenTrump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that mayhaveprotected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution," the court wrote.
The ruling from the three-judge panel was unanimous. The three-judge panel who issued the ruling included two judges, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, who were appointed by Joe Biden and one, Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush.
Read more about the February ruling.
Most Americans want Supreme Court to reject Trump immunity claims, polls show
From CNN's Ariel Edwards-Levy and John Fritze
About 56% of US adults in a March Marquette Law School poll believe former President Donald Trump should not have immunity from criminal prosecution foractions taken during his presidency.
That's compared to the 28% of those polled who do believe Trump should be granted immunity and 17% who were not sure.
Pollsters asked half of respondents whether “former presidents” should receive immunity and the other half whether “former President Donald Trump,” specifically, should be shielded from prosecution.
The difference, the poll’s director said, appeared to be due largely to Republicans who generally oppose immunity for “former presidents” but who were more willing to support such protections for Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
The poll found that 55% of Republicans polled thought Trump should be granted immunity, while 32% thought the same with the "former presidents" wording. Across the aisle, 4% of Democrats thought Trump should be granted immunity and 9% thought the same of "former presidents."
“The striking finding is that Republicans reverse themselves when asked about Trump rather than ‘former presidents,’” said Charles Franklin, a professor of law and public policy and the director of the Marquette Law School poll.
Other polls have also found little public support for giving Trump immunity. Across three surveys conducted earlier this year – fromABC/Ipsos,NPR/PBS NewsHour/MaristandCBS/YouGov, only about one-third of Americans supported giving Trump immunity, with roughly two-thirds saying he shouldn't be immune from prosecution.
Read more about the Marquette poll.
Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s immunity could turn on a single question
From CNN's John FritzeandTierney Sneed
The Supreme Court will likely produce thousands of words when it decides this year whether former PresidentDonald Trump may claim immunityfrom special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion charges.
But for now, court watchers are stuck parsing the first 29.
That’s how many words the court used to lay out the "question presented" in Trump’s immunity appeal — the question that the nine justices will focus on when they meet this week to hear arguments and then sit down to craft an opinion that will either greenlight Smith’s prosecution of the former president or shut it down.
More than two weeks after Trump requested that the Supreme Court block a lower court ruling against him, the justices announced on February 28 they would decide the dispute.
In a terse,one-page order, the court expedited review and said it would hear arguments during the week of April 22. It also defined the question it intended to answer.
"Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office," the court wrote.
Every time the Supreme Court grants an appeal, it settles on a specific legal question to resolve. Often, the court will adopt the question crafted by the party appealing. Other times, it will limit the question or recast it in a different way.
Read the full story.
Justice Thomas again chooses to stay on a January 6-related case. Here's why that matters
From CNN's Devan Cole
Amid calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the high-stakes case over whetherDonald Trump has presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, the conservative jurist has made clear he doesn’t plan to step aside – or even respond publicly to the appeals from Democrats and others.
The justice’s critics are all citingpast effortsby his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, to reverse the 2020 presidential election in Trump’s favor and her attendance at the rally Trump held on January 6, 2021, shortly before the US Capitol attack.
Thus far, Thomas has given no sign that he intends to recuse himself fromTrump v. US– or explain his reasoning for remaining on the case, which the nine justices will hear arguments in on Thursday.
Judicial ethics experts say that Thomas has an obligation to explain his decision not to recuse himself, given the precedent set by other justices in the past.
“Reasonable people are questioning Justice Thomas’ partiality and I think I think he definitely owes the American people an explanation of why he is unbiased in these cases,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, which has pushed for more transparency from the federal judiciary.
“I think that’s a fairly low bar,” Roth added. “You think you’re unbiased, OK, tell us why.”
Read more about Thomas' decision to stay on the case.
In a filing earlier this month, special counsel Jack Smith urged SCOTUS to reject Trump’s claim of immunity
From CNN's John Fritze,Tierney SneedandHannah Rabinowitz
Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court earlier this month to rejectDonald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunityand to deny the former president any opportunity to delay a trial on charges that he attempted to subvert the results of the 2020 election.
Smith told the court that Trump's position has no grounding in the Constitution, the nation’s history, or Americans’ understanding that presidents are not above the law.
Even if the Supreme Court finds that former presidents are entitled to some form of immunity, Smith asserted, at least some of Trump’s actions were private conduct—far removed from "official acts"—and could be prosecuted.
"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," Smith told the court.
Smith’s filing landed in what has emerged as the most closely watched case of the Supreme Court’s current term. A broad ruling for Trump could undermine not only the special counsel’s election subversion case, but a litany of other criminal charges pending against him.
Read more about Smith's court filing.
Trump wanted to attend today's oral arguments, but the New York trial judge didn't give him permission
From CNN's Dan Berman
One person missing from the Supreme Court today is Donald Trump, who is currently sitting on trial in New York City on state criminal charges related to falsifying business records.
Trump wanted to attend the oral arguments in Washington, DC, his lawyer told New York Judge Juan Merchan last week, but as a criminal defendant he would need special permission or for the trial to be in recess.
Merchan declined the request.
"Your client is a criminal defendant,” the judge said. “He’s required to be here.”
