The request of the former US president donald trump to enjoy absolute judicial immunity did not seem to convince the judges of the Supreme Court this Thursday, although it has helped the Republican to delay his trial for the assault on the Capitol and gain very valuable time with an eye on the November elections.
The nine magistrates, six of them conservative and three others progressive, heard for almost three hours the arguments of Trump’s defense and the Prosecutor’s Office for and against immunityin an unprecedented hearing given that never before had a former president been criminally charged.
The High Court must decide whether Trump is protected for having been president and, therefore, Whether the pending trial should be annulled in federal court in Washington over his alleged attempt to overturn the election he lost in 2020 and for instigating the assault on the Capitol.
Both the judge handling the case and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals dismissed the immunity request, so Trump’s defense elevated him to the Supreme Court, who admitted him to study in February.
Doubts about the scope of immunity
Although it is not stated in the Constitution, US presidents have historically enjoyed immunity from legal proceedings related to the performance of their functions in order to avoid a violation of the separation of powers.
In many of the questions directed to Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, and prosecutor Michael Dreeben, the Supreme Court justices were skeptical of giving Trump full immunity, although they did. They believe there should be some protection for former presidents against arbitrary acts of his successors. The majority seemed in favor of shielding with immunity only some actions typical of the official functions of a president and not those that are personal in nature.
Questioned by the judges, Trump’s lawyer went so far as to defend that a president could order a coup d’état or an assassination within the exercise of his office without being charged. But one of the key moments was when conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump himself, got Sauer to admit that Some of the Republican’s actions had a “private” nature and are probably not protected by immunity.
Trump wins the victory of time
Some conservative magistrates critical of the Prosecutor’s Office were inclined to not completely resolve the matter and to return the case to lower courts to determine What actions of Trump are subject to immunity. If confirmed, it would be a great victory for the Republican given that the litigation would most likely last until after the November 5 elections, in which Trump will fight again with the current president, Democrat Joe Biden.
The New York magnate’s strategy involves delaying all his judicial processes since, if he returned to the White House, he could order the Department of Justice to close the federal accusations against him. Instead, the Special Prosecutor’s Office led by Jack Smith pressures the High Court to make a quick decision so that preparations for the trial of the assault on the Capitol can be resumed.
The trial should have started on March 4, but was suspended due to Trump’s request for immunity. It is unknown when the Supreme Court will issue its ruling, but it usually publishes its decisions in June, before the summer recess.
And the other trials?
The hearing at the High Court caught Trump in New York, where this Thursday a new day of the trial against him for falsification of accounting records to buy the silence of a porn actress in the 2016 election campaign. From there, he defended before the press that without immunity, presidents would be “decorative” positions who would not make decisions for fear of being prosecuted when leaving office.
The Supreme Court’s decision on immunity will not affect the judicial process in the Big Apple because it corresponds to alleged crimes committed before the Republican was president. On the other hand, yes could alter Trump’s pending trials in Washington for the assault on the Capitol, in Florida for illegally taking classified documents from the White House and in Georgia for electoral interference.
