Will the Supreme Court give Trump the absolute immunity he claims to have?
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.”
Even if President Trump could commit a crime and suffer no political consequences, would crimes in office result in legal consequences? The U.S. Supreme Court is about to consider whether — and more importantly under what circumstances — a president is immune from criminal prosecution.
The story starts on or about Nov. 14, 2020, when then-President Trump took his first steps to engage in a broad conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruct the certification of the electoral vote, and “injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons” in the exercise of their right to “have one’s vote counted.” Or so says the federal indictment, filed 936 days after Jan. 7, 2021 — the day Donald Trump’s alleged criminal conduct ceased.
This case, prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, was supposed to go to trial this month in a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C. But Trump’s lawyers asserted a bold defense: the former president can’t be prosecuted for any crimes occurring “within the outer perimeter of his Presidential responsibilities.” He’s immune, they say.
And it is a broad claim. Trump’s lawyer argued to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that the president could not be prosecuted for ordering “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” — at least, not unless he is first impeached and removed from office.
For Trump, hyperbole has turned into a legal claim. He really does seem to think he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue with no consequences.
But this can’t be true — the Constitution’s impeachment clause authorizes criminal charges after a Senate conviction. Some presidents have even taken steps to avoid such charges. Richard Nixon made sure he was pardoned for his crimes, and Bill Clinton signed an agreement with prosecutors to avoid an obstruction of justice charge.
However, it also can’t be true that a president could be prosecuted for any alleged crime. Barack Obama could not be prosecuted for the murder of Osama bin Laden. President Joe Biden could not be prosecuted for his moves to illegally forgive student loans. Even Jack Smith admitted in court filings that some crimes are off limits.
So the problem becomes, where do we draw the line?
While the Supreme Court has been clear that a president has no immunity from civil lawsuits for conduct unrelated to their office (Paula Jones v. Clinton) and a president has “absolute immunity” from civil liability for actions taken within the “outer perimeter” of official duties (Nixon v. Fitzgerald), the court has yet to define the contours of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.
Back to Mr. Smith’s prosecution. Following a Trump appeal, a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals laid out a rather sweeping (if not sloppy) decision suggesting that presidents have no immunity from criminal prosecution. The court ruled that if a president breaks a “generally applicable” criminal law, then that president is, automatically, acting outside the scope of his duties and therefore has no immunity.
But if any criminal statute can be applied to a president’s official conduct, then the judiciary will always hold, forgive the expression, a trump card over executive action.
To avoid the separation of powers concerns that would arise, the Supreme Court has formulated a “clear statement rule.” This rule — established by the Supreme Court and applied to presidential conduct by multiple administrations from both parties — holds that generally applicable laws, including criminal laws, should not apply to presidential conduct if they present a “possible conflict with the President’s constitutional prerogative.”
But defining the president’s “constitutional prerogative” is itself a difficult task. Would ordering Seal Team Six to take out a political rival interfere with such prerogative? A president is not conferred with the power to execute a citizen for no reason. But what if that citizen is said to be involved in an ongoing plot to overthrow the government? Closer to home, what if a president is alleged to have lied about the facts related to the outcome of an election?
The district court and the Court of Appeals blew right past this complexity, which is likely why the Supreme Court took the case. At the upcoming argument on April 25, you can expect much discussion of the clear statement rule, a president’s constitutional prerogatives, and the “outer perimeter” of his official duties.
None of this is as easy as it seems. Criminal statutes are often vaguely worded and, while we may not be as worried if the average citizen errs on the side of caution to avoid a criminal charge, do we want to impose the burden on a president acting in a politically charged environment?
The matter is made even more difficult because most, if not all, of the allegations against Trump involve speech: claims he made, beliefs he asserted, inflammatory statements, exaggerations, half-truths — even some outright falsities. Do we want presidents to face the risk that their political opponents might come to power and prosecute them? A president is also a politician, and politicians should have broad rights to make political statements — even horrible, frightening and irrational political statements.
After the dust settles, neither party is likely to be happy. Donald Trump is unlikely to get his “Seal Team 6” immunity, and Jack Smith will have to go back to the district court to make his case. The case will then have to proceed there with hearings, discovery, more filings, and several months of trial preparation.
At least in this case, a conviction in 2024 seems highly unlikely, but we should at least know whether a president is immune from prosecution.
Rick Esenberg is president and general counsel, and Dan Lennington is deputy counsel, at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.
Date: | |
Tag: | Donald Trump |
Filter
-
Here’s the latest on the argument.
The justices will consider on Thursday whether the former president must face trial on charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election.The New York Times - Top stories -
Supreme Court hears Trump's 'absolute immunity' claim, shape of presidency at stake
The Supreme Court is taking up the monumental question of whether a former president turned GOP nominee can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to stay in power.ABC News - Top stories - Donald Trump -
At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument
D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve official acts, meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.NBC News - Top stories - Donald Trump -
At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument
D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve official acts, meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.NBC News - Politics - Donald Trump -
Supreme Court to consider Trump's presidential immunity claim
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on President Donald Trump's claim that he should be immune from federal prosecution for his conduct while serving in the White House. CBS News' Errol Barnett breaks down the history of presidential power ...CBS News - Top stories - Donald Trump -
Supreme Court Appears Open to Some of Donald Trump's Immunity Claims
The justices will decide whether the former president can be prosecuted on charges that he conspired to steal the 2020 presidential election.The Wall Street Journal - World - Donald Trump -
Supreme Court to hear Trump’s presidential immunity claim
Former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity goes before the Supreme Court on Thursday. The decision in the case could determine whether Trump will be tried in at least two other cases.CBS News - Top stories - Donald Trump -
Supreme Court hearing Trump immunity claim
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecution for conduct while he was in office. Hours before, Trump told reporters, "A president has to have immunity. If you ...CBS News - Top stories - Donald Trump -
Supreme Court to weigh Trump immunity claim over 2020 election prosecution
The outcome of the immunity case before the Supreme Court will have significant ramifications for former President Donald Trump's federal criminal prosecution in Washington, D.C.CBS News - Politics - Donald Trump -
In Trump immunity case, Supreme Court seems open to some protection
The Supreme Court convened to consider whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges in the 2020 election case.CBS News - Politics - Donald Trump
More from The Hill
-
Trump slams RFK Jr. in latest social media rant: 'Wasted protest vote'
Former President Trump came out swinging against independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Friday, despite weeks of amping him up over his likely November rival, President Biden. In a series of post on Truth Social, Trump suggested ...The Hill - Politics - Donald Trump -
RFK Jr. threatens to challenge TikTok ban: It's just a 'smoke screen'
Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threatened to challenge a potential TikTok ban Friday, as efforts to block the video app in the U.S. came closer to reality earlier this week. “I’m going to file a lawsuit challenging the ...The Hill - Politics - Tiktok -
White House rips 'dangerous, appalling statements' from Columbia protest leader
The White House heavily criticized comments that resurfaced this week from a student leader of the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. “These dangerous, appalling statements turn the stomach and should serve as a wakeup call. It is ...The Hill - Politics -
Freight train derails, catches fire near New Mexico-Arizona border causing road closures
A freight train detailed and caught fire, resulting in the closure of a nearby interstate, the Arizona Department of Transportation announced on Friday. "I-40 EB is closed at milepost 357 due to a train derailment in New Mexico," the Arizona DOT ...The Hill - Politics -
Paramedic sentenced to 4 years of probation for Elijah McClain's death
A Colorado paramedic has been sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the 2019 death of Elijah McClain. Jeremy Cooper, a former Aurora Fire Rescue paramedic, was convicted on Dec. 22 of criminally negligent homicide. He was the last ...The Hill - Politics