Justices Seemed Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready today to rule that former presidents should have some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution. Such a decision, while effectively rejecting Donald Trump’s assertion of absolute immunity, could narrow the scope of the federal criminal case accusing Trump of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.
The court seemed poised to send the case back to a lower court to draw distinctions between official conduct that would be protected and private conduct that could be subject to criminal charges. Those proceedings could make it hard to conduct the trial before the 2024 election.
The conservative justices looked unconcerned about a delay. They warned of a future where former presidents are regularly charged by politically motivated prosecutors. They agreed with the liberal justices mainly about the significance of their decision, which is expected in late June or early July: “We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Many of the justices seemed to be considering the idea that presidents should enjoy some form of protection against criminal prosecution. But the liberal justices voiced concern that by offering presidents a shield from prosecution, the court could turn the Oval Office into a “seat of criminality,” as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described it.
Here are the takeaways from today’s hearing.
In other Trump news, a witness in the New York trial told jurors about how he helped bury scandalous stories about Trump before the 2016 election.