WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Supreme Court is considering a case involving former President Donald Trump that could set a historic precedent.
At issue: do presidents have immunity from prosecution, and if so how far does it go? The decision will affect not only Trump, but future presidents as well.
On Thursday, an attorney for the former president tried to convince the justices that Trump cannot be criminally prosecuted for any of his official acts while in office, which led the justices to focus their questioning on how to make a distinction between private and official acts.
"In the Special Council's brief he urges us...even if we were to decide or assume there was some sort of immunity for official acts, that there were sufficient private acts in the indictment for the case to go back, and the trial to begin immediately," said Justice Amy Coney Barrett to Trump Attorney D. John Sauer.
"The official stuff has to be expunged completely from the indictment before the case can go forward," he explained.
"If you expunge the official stuff from the indictment, that's like a one-legged stool, right? I mean, giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange," questioned Chief Justice John Roberts.
On the question of immunity, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that the founding fathers considered including this protection for presidents, and decided against it.
"They had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors and yet they didn't take it up. Instead, they passed an Impeachment Clause, that basically says you can't remove a president from office, except for by trial in the Senate, but you can impeach him after, or you can impose criminal liability," she said.
Michael Dreeben, the attorney for the Justice Department, expanded on that same argument.
"The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain," he explained.
Dreeben argued the president doesn't need absolute immunity, because layers of protections and legal safeguards are already in place.
"The existing system is a carefully balanced framework. It protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. That has been the understanding of every president from the framing, through Watergate, and up to today," he said.
Conservative justices questioned whether, without some form of immunity, existing safeguards would truly protect a president against maliciously motivated prosecutors.
"The vast majority of attorneys general and justice department attorneys...are honorable people and take their professional, ethical responsibilities seriously. But there have been exceptions, right, both among attorneys general and federal prosecutors," questioned Justice Samuel Alito.
***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters and download the CBN News app to ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a Christian Perspective.***
"We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecution in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence. A politically driven prosecution would violate the Constitution," Dreeben argued.
It's unclear when the High Court will issue a decision on this case, but it will likely come down end of June or early July as Americans begin to earnestly focus on the 2024 presidential race between Trump and Biden.
Meanwhile, Axios reports, "The high court signaled it might punt on presidential immunity — a win for Trump, who has sought to delay a trial in the federal Jan. 6 case against him until next year."
Did you know?
God is everywhere—even in the news. That’s why we view every news story through the lens of faith. We are committed to delivering quality independent Christian journalism you can trust. But it takes a lot of hard work, time, and money to do what we do. Help us continue to be a voice for truth in the media by supporting CBN News for as little as $1.
Support CBN News
