(WatchDogReport.org) – The Supreme Court of the United States appears to be primarily in agreement with the arguments of former President Donald Trump’s legal team that former presidents remain immune from some types of prosecution after their term in the White House. A majority of justices at the Supreme Court supported the points made by the attorneys.
A federal court has ruled in support of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution in Washington, D.C., regarding allegations that Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election. Smith’s prosecution in the federal trial court has been put on hold, however, most likely until late June, when the Supreme Court is expected to reach an official verdict.
The Supreme Court already ruled in Trump’s favor in March 2024 when it stated that states cannot bar Trump from their ballots. Trump declared the verdict a “big win” for the country. The Supreme Court could stop short of granting the 2024 presidential candidate absolute immunity, though, and return the case to a lower court to determine whether some of the indictment’s parts could be classed as “official acts” that may receive protection from presidential immunity.
Should the case return to the lower courts for a point-by-point dissection to determine exactly what immunities Trump has, the process could take months — potentially pushing the final results until well after the November election. This would be a big win for the former president.
During the open arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns about Smith’s case, asking if Smith was in a legitimate position to charge Trump because the Special Counsel was a private citizen when he was appointed to his role by AG Garland.
On April 25, Thomas asked Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, if he had scrutinized Smith’s appointment. Sauer clarified that he had not raised the concern directly but agreed with the analysis by Attorney Generals Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey in March. Meese and Mukasey asked whether Smith possessed any legal authority required to lead the case against Trump, partly because the Senate never confirmed him to any position.
Justice Neil Gorsuch raised a hypothetical scenario with Smith’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben, asking whether a president leading a mostly peaceful civil rights event that could interrupt civil proceedings would face similar charges after leaving office. Though the latest development at the Supreme Court may seem hopeful for the former president, the Supreme Court has not revealed whether agreement with Trump’s position would be unanimous.
Copyright 2024, WatchDogReport.org
