As Donald Trump returns to a New York courtroom for another day of his hush money trial, another team of his lawyers will be arguing before the Supreme Court in a case that is of utmost consequence to his fate.
The justices will consider whether his conduct as president gives him broad immunity from prosecution.
The high court’s decision won’t impact the current proceedings playing out in Manhattan, but they will likely decide whether Trump’s January 6th case —- in which he is charged with conspiring to remain in power —- moves forward.
The justices’ opinion also may ultimately set the ground rules for any future president, as they are weighing questions that have never quite come before the court this directly.
Many legal scholars predict that the justices will decide that Trump does not have immunity, but almost as important is how quickly the Supreme Court rules. That will impact when a federal trial in the January 6th case can start, with figures like Liz Cheney urging the justices to act quickly so as to ensure that proceedings can happen before the election.
“No President who tries to steal an election and seize power is entitled to immunity for those acts,” Cheney wrote on X/Twitter this week. “The American people deserve to hear all of the J6 evidence presented in open court. SCOTUS should conclude without delay that no immunity applies here.”
Steven D. Schwinn of the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law wrote that there were a myriad of factors that could delay the case even after the court rules, a decision that may not come until late June. “All this may push any trial back after the 2024 presidential election and, if Trump were elected, the transition. And that could allow a second-term President Trump to quash the case.”
The justices also could make a decision that is less monumental, like rendering an opinion on Trump’s charges specifically and leaving it up to lower courts to decide future questions of immunity on a case by case basis.
Arguing for Trump will be John Sauer, the former solicitor general of Missouri. Before an appellate hearing in January, His main argument was that a president could not be prosecuted for actions in office unless he first was impeached and was convicted in the Senate. The appellate judges weren’t buying in —- one noted that it meant a president could order Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent and not face prosecution.
The appellate court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that Trump did not have immunity. “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” they wrote.
The judge in Trump’s New York case, Juan Merchan, made it clear that the former president could not attend the Supreme Court oral arguments and had to be present at his New York trial.
Michael Dreeben, counselor to the special counsel for the Justice Department, will be arguing for the federal prosecutors. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trumpo on election conspiracy charges has been paused as the immunity question is resolved.
In New York, Trump told reporters this morning, “A president has to have immunity. If you don’t have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.”
Outside the court this morning, there were only a few demonstrators, including one who had a large mock Trump campaign poster that read “LOSER.”
Viewers will be able to listen to the arguments on C-SPAN and in live audio feeds on cable news networks, unlike the Trump his money trial, which restricts sights and sounds from being transmitted from the courtroom.
