Does the president have absolute immunity?

That is the question before the US Supreme Court.

The day had many twists and turns….

The “case is submitted.” With those words, Chief Justice John Roberts wrapped up Thursday’s historic testimony about absolute presidential immunity—and whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for actions taken while he was in office, reports CNN. The gist of early coverage is that Trump will be pleased with the eventual outcome, even though he may lose the main thrust of the case. Details:

• A Trump loss: At least five of the justices seemed likely to reject Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, reports the AP. (Especially given extreme hypotheticals such as having a rival assassinated.)
• But a Trump win: Both the New York Times and the Washington Post agree the court is on track to reject absolute immunity, but both say the court also seems poised to send the matter back to a lower court for clarification between public and private actions. That would likely delay Trump’s federal trial on charges he tried to subvert the 2020 election for months, perhaps until after this year’s vote—an outcome that would “amount to a victory for Trump,” per Politico. For one thing, he could effectively torpedo the case should he win reelection.
• Key exchange: “Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution there can be no presidency as we know it,” Trump attorney D. John Sauer told the court, per the Wall Street Journal. To which Samuel Alito responded, “My question is whether the very robust form of immunity that you’re advocating is really necessary.”
• Roberts’ concern: Roberts “clearly believes that the lower courts did not do enough to suss out exactly what is an official act versus a private act,” says CNN legal analyst Paula Reid. “So what they’re setting up here is likely the justices are going to come up with some sort of test, and then send it back down to the lower courts for more litigation.”
• Decision: Typically, the court would issue its decision in late June or early July, notes the Times, but the justices may speed things up given the circumstances.
• Irrelevant? Trump’s lawyers have long expected to lose the main argument, according to Rolling Stone. But merely getting the Supreme Court to hear the case in the first place—and thus delay special prosecutor Jack Smith’s case against the former president—was reason enough for celebration, per the story. They were “literally popping champagne” when the court agreed to take the case, the story says.

The Justices asked some key questions….

• Justice Elena Kagan: Kagan said the framers of the Constitution clearly didn’t want a “monarch” to run the country, CNN reports. “Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch, and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” she asked.
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military … to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked Trump lawyer D. John Sauer. The Washington Post reports that Sauer said immunity was possible. “It would depend on the hypothetical that we can see,” he said. “That could well be an official act. It could.” He gave a similar answer when Kagan presented the hypothetical case of a president who’d ordered a military coup.
• Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Barrett took issue with the Trump team’s argument that a former president needs to be impeached and convicted by the Senate before a court can convict them, the AP reports. “There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench, and I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment,” she said. “So why is the president different when the impeachment clause doesn’t say so?”
• Justice Neil Gorsuch: Gorsuch asked whether presidents can pardon themselves, noting that the court has “happily” never had to deal with such questions. The New York Times reports that Sauer deflected the question, saying the main concern is that a president should be able to make bold decisions without fearing prosecution.
• Chief Justice John Roberts: During discussion of what constitutes an official act, Roberts gave the example of a president appointing an ambassador in return for a bribe, asking, “How do you analyze that?” Sauer said it would be up to “the court’s discretion,” per the Post.

If my meager breakdown is not enough then maybe this will help you along….

https://www.vox.com/scotus/24140309/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity-jack-smith

This is proving interesting but I think I already know what will come out of this session….how about you?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”