The Supreme Court is set to consider the scope of presidential immunity in a case that could have significant implications for former President Trump. The case, Trump v. United States, will be heard on Thursday and will determine whether a former president can claim immunity from criminal charges for actions taken while in office.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is investigating Trump’s alleged involvement in the January 6th Capitol riot and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, argues that presidents are not above the law. He contends that Trump’s actions do not fall within the scope of immunity and that he should be held accountable for any crimes he may have committed.
Trump’s legal team, on the other hand, argues that granting immunity is essential to protect the presidency from political influence. They argue that if presidents are subject to criminal prosecution, they will be more likely to make decisions based on political expediency rather than what is in the best interests of the country.
Legal experts say that the Supreme Court is likely to take a narrow approach to the issue of presidential immunity. They believe that the Court will likely rule that presidents do not have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution but that they may have some degree of immunity for actions taken within the scope of their official duties.
The outcome of the case could have a significant impact on Trump’s legal battles. If the Court rules that he does not have immunity, he could face criminal charges in connection with the January 6th Capitol riot and his efforts to overturn the election results.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Thursday at 10 a.m. The Justice Department declined to comment on the case, and Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement that “Without immunity for official acts, there can be no Presidency.” He added that allowing political opponents to prosecute the President once he leaves office will distort the President’s most important decisions.
