US Supreme Court justices in Trump case lean toward some level of immunity

WASHINGTON: Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy on Thursday to the argument that presidents have some immunity against criminal charges for certain actions taken in office as it heard arguments over Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to undo his 2020 election loss.

Some of the questions posed during the arguments probed hypothetical examples of presidential wrongdoing such as selling nuclear secrets, ordering a coup or political assassination or taking a bribe. But some of the conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, voiced concern about presidents lacking any level of immunity including for less obviously egregious acts.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, said during the arguments.

Trump appealed after lower courts rejected his request to be shielded from four election-related criminal charges on the grounds that he was serving as president.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said a president is in “a peculiarly precarious position,” as he expressed concern about presidents having to worry about being indicted.”And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process where the loser gets thrown in jail,” Alito added. “So I think it’s exactly the opposite, Justice Alito,” Dreeben responded. “There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election.”

D. John Sauer, the lawyer arguing for Trump, painted a dire picture of the presidency without immunity.

“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts,” Sauer told the justices.

Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel, told the justices that the Supreme Court has never recognized the kind of immunity that Trump seeks for a public official.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts signaled concern about relying merely on the “good faith” of the prosecutors to prevent abusive prosecutions against presidents if the Supreme Court rejects presidential immunity.