No broad immunity for Trump but there maybe concessions

 

After nearly three hours of oral arguments, the Supreme Court seems inclined to dismiss former President Donald Trump's claims of broad immunity and the extensive protections he seeks to halt his federal election subversion case. However, the court appears hesitant to grant special counsel Jack Smith unfettered authority to pursue these charges.

Conservative justices vigorously questioned the special counsel's lawyer, expressing sympathy for Trump's argument that without some form of immunity, future presidents could face politically motivated prosecutions. The debate centered on distinguishing between Trump's official presidential acts and his private conduct, which could have far-reaching implications for his legal fate and the future criminal exposure of presidents.

Key takeaways from the arguments include:

1. Unlikely Resolution of Immunity Question: The court appears unlikely to provide a definitive answer on whether Trump can be prosecuted for his actions to overturn the 2020 election, potentially leaving much of the decision to lower courts. This delay could align with Trump's strategy of postponement, potentially delaying a trial before the election.

2. Concessions on Private Conduct: Trump's attorney acknowledged that some alleged conduct supporting the charges against him was private, marking a significant retreat from Trump's earlier stance of absolute immunity. This concession may lead to further proceedings to determine the distinction between private and official acts, further delaying the case.

3. Concerns about Ruling Scope and Timing: Conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concerns about the scope of Trump's immunity claim and the timing of any ruling. They questioned whether the case could proceed quickly by focusing only on Trump's private conduct.

4. Liberal Justices' Skepticism: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed skepticism about Trump's absolute immunity claims, questioning their potential implications for presidential accountability and the rule of law.

5. Conservative Concerns about Ex-Presidents' Rights: Conservative justices raised concerns about subjecting former presidents to potentially illegitimate criminal proceedings and the burden it could place on them, suggesting that denying immunity could discourage peaceful transfers of power.

6. Trump's Assertion of Rights: Trump's lawyer asserted that Trump had the right to put forward "fake electors" in states he lost in 2020, citing historical precedent. This assertion highlights the broadness of Trump's claims and the contentious nature of the case.

With the arguments concluded, attention now turns to the timing of the court's decision, which could impact the trial's likelihood before the November election.