The Supreme Court has never weighed in on whether a former president is immune from prosecution for actions taken while in office.

[link removed]
High stakes at the high court

It’s a big moment in a big case.

The Supreme Court has never weighed in on whether an ex-president is immune from prosecution for actions taken while in office. This is because a former U.S. president has never faced criminal charges before.

Now, former President Donald Trump, who has been indicted in four separate criminal cases ([link removed]) , is trying to claim “absolute immunity,” specifically against charges that he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Justices will hear arguments on April 25 ([link removed]) . The eventual decision in Trump v. United States could not only affect the timing of the federal Jan. 6 trial at the heart of this case, but also have wider political ramifications before and beyond November’s general election.

The PBS NewsHour explores what you need to know before Thursday’s arguments, including why you’ll likely hear Richard Nixon’s name.

This newsletter was compiled by Joshua Barajas ([link removed]) .
HOW TO LISTEN TO TRUMP V. UNITED STATES
[link removed]
Listen to Thursday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the player above.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. United States, starting at 10 a.m. EDT on Thursday, April 25.

The central question before the justices: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office,” says the court’s one-page order ([link removed]) .

Timing is crucial. A decision in this case is expected to affect whether the election interference case goes to trial before this year’s presidential election.

In that case, federal prosecutors accused Trump of trying to obstruct the transition of power to President Joe Biden and overturn the 2020 election outcome. Trump was indicted on four charges, including conspiracy to defraud the government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has sought to dismiss or delay all the cases against him.

Why the delays matter. If Trump is reelected to the White House, he could order the Justice Department drop the federal charges against him.


WHAT TO WATCH AS SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRUMP’S IMMUNITY CLAIM
[link removed]
Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images
By Marcia Coyle, @MarciaCoyle ([link removed])
U.S. Supreme Court Analyst

The stakes in Trump v. United States are incredibly high, and not just for Trump.

The question before the justices goes to the heart of presidential accountability and the nation’s rule of law, and arises from Trump’s defense to his federal indictment for conspiring “to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election.”

With the next election months away, and Trump the presumptive Republican nominee, the outcome of this case could affect the timing and substance of Trump’s federal trial, the electorate’s view of Trump’s candidacy and, most importantly, the role and powers of presidents in our democracy.

The justices are asked to decide whether and to what extent a former president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. The arguments will involve clauses of the Constitution, their text, historical practice and the scope of “official acts.”

What are Trump’s arguments? His bottom-line argument is that his immunity should be absolute ([link removed]) and extend to the outer perimeter of his official duties. He reaches that result by making four arguments:

First, Article II of the Constitution, which vests the executive power in a president, and the separation of powers doctrine, say courts lack authority to sit in judgment over the president’s official acts. From Marbury v. Madison forward, Trump argues in his brief ([link removed]) , courts have refused to exercise jurisdiction over a president’s official acts. He also uses the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nixon v. Fitzgerald to claim that presidents have absolute immunity from civil liability for official acts: “A fortiori, Article III courts cannot sit in criminal judgment over a President’s official acts,” Trump’s brief reads.

Second, Trump was impeached by the House but never convicted by the Senate. The impeachment judgment clause in the Constitution confirms his argument, he claims, because it dictates that the president cannot be prosecuted unless he is first impeached and convicted by the Senate.

Third, no former president was ever prosecuted for official acts until 2023. The lack of historical precedent is a “telling indication” of a serious problem with prosecution for official acts.

Four, “The threat of future prosecution will cripple current Presidential decisionmaking.”

What is the United States’ response? Special counsel Jack Smith’s team rejects Trump’s immunity claim by making four arguments:

First, there is no presidential power that entitles the president to claim immunity from general federal criminal laws supporting the charges against Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith argues in the government’s brief ([link removed]) . “The President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them.”

Second, history also refutes Trump’s claim. All presidents, from the Founding Fathers to the modern era, knew after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts. For an example, see Richard Nixon’s official acts in Watergate and his acceptance of a presidential pardon.

Third, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, involving civil immunity, doesn’t help Trump because it doesn’t extend to the far weightier interest in vindicating federal criminal law.

Fourth, the impeachment judgment clause does not make Senate conviction a condition precedent to prosecution. It expressly recognizes that former presidents may be prosecuted.

Will the “SEAL Team Six” hypothetical get replayed? During the January lower appellate court arguments ([link removed]) in Trump’s immunity appeal, a judge asked Trump’s lawyer if a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent and be immune from prosecution. His lawyer’s “qualified yes” ([link removed]) drew strong reactions across social media and beyond.

Will a Supreme Court justice ask it this time? Be prepared for some unusual hypotheticals as the justices probe the boundaries of each side’s arguments.
[link removed]
[link removed]
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS NewsHour's newsletters ([link removed]) .
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2024 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])