The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday regarding a case centered on former President Trump and what constitutes presidential immunity. Chief Justice John Roberts grilled an attorney representing the Department of Justice with many other justices asking the hard questions
Trump’s attorneys have claimed presidential immunity in a federal case brought forth by Special Counsel Jack Smith which a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia originally rejected but will now be argued before the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts critically questioned attorney Michael Dreeben seeming to disagree with the lower courts opinion, asking him what exactly was he arguing? Was the lower court and the Department of Justice’s view that because he was indicted that immediately presidential immunity was ineligible as a defense?
LISTEN:
“They said that there is no reason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith and there is no reason to worry because a grand jury will have returned the indictment,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “Now, you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment, and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases, I‘m not suggesting here, so if it’s tautological, if those are the only protections the court gave that is no longer your position, you are not defending that position, why shouldn‘t we send it back to the court of appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that’s not the law?”
“Well, I am defending the court of appeals’ judgment and I do think there are layered safeguards the court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about unduly chilling presidential conduct,” Dreeben answered. “That concerns us. We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecutions in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence. A politically driven prosecution would violate the Constitution… It’s is not something within the arsenal of prosecutors to do.”
However Trump and his attorneys believe and have launched accusations against Special Counsel Jack Smith that he has “a political motive” to bring this case just before a presidential election against the presumptive nominee of the opposing party. Special Counsel Jack Smith even tried to expedite the trial according to a brief filed on Feb 15th but the Supreme Court denied the request until the appeal has come to a conclusion. Trump’s attorneys are appealing the ruling of United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan of the District of Columbia where she rejected a motion to dismiss because Trump was entitled to presidential immunity.
The three-judge appeals court rejected the appeal ruling “former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct.”
Attorney’s appealed that decision and the Supreme Court will now decide, giving some clarity to what presidential immunity actually means.