Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Trump Immunity Claim in Election Interference Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a case alleging he attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. Justices seemed very concerned about the potential implications this case can have on future presidents.  

“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know,” said D. John Sauer, Trump’s attorney.

Former President Trump’s lawyers make their case before the highest Court. Justices threw many hypothetical questions on the scope of presidential immunity.  

Associate Justice Elena Kagan: “Let’s say this president who ordered the military to stage a coup, he’s no longer president, he wasn’t impeached, he couldn’t  be impeached. But he ordered the military to stage a coup. And you’re saying that’s  an official act that’s immune? 

Sauer: “I think it would depend on the circumstances where there was an official act.” 

But Michael Dreeben, the Counselor to the Special Counsel, argued the Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official.  

Dreeben: “Petitioner, however, claims that a former President has permanent immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power.” 

Outside the Court, the majority of people there were not in support of Trump’s claims. 

“This is a huge decision and its simple no one is above the law,” said Dana Doonan, who is not in support of Trump. 

Others said the former President will prevail.  

“This is election interference when they have the Justice Department and weaponize it against their political opponents,” said Matthew Woods, who is supporting Trump.  

The timing of the ruling could just be as important as the outcome. A decision in this case could come down later this summer. The timing of it could make it hard to complete this election interference trial case before the November election.