At US Supreme Court, clashing views presented on presidential immunity

At US Supreme Court, clashing views presented on presidential immunity
A lone protester holds a sign outside the US Supreme Court, where the high judges ruled unanimously that the 14th amendment´s insurrection clause will not prevent former US President Trump from appearing on Colorado´s election ballot in Washington, DC, USA, 04 March 2024. The ruling comes one day ahead of ‘Super Tuesday’, when Colorado, along with 14 other states, holds its primary election. Trump is running against Former South Carolina Governor Haley for the Republican presidential primary. EPA-EFE/JIM LO SCALZO

WASHINGTON, April 25 (Reuters) - During arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity from prosecution, two starkly different views of the consequences were on display on Thursday.

By Will Dunham

Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, painted a dire picture of presidents facing “de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office” because of the threat of future prosecution without the immunity the former president is seeking.

Michael Dreeben, arguing on behalf of Special Counsel Jack Smith, said the “absolute immunity” sought by Trump “would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder – and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power.”

The justices heard arguments in Trump’s appeal after lower courts rejected his claim of presidential immunity in a criminal case brought against him by the special counsel on four charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election in a rematch from four years ago.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted the conflicting concerns raised by giving presidents immunity. Without it, presidents could be concerned about being investigated, which to some extent could chill their ability to “do what they want in office,” Jackson said.

“And that’s a concern on one side,” Jackson said.

But Jackson expressed worry that immunity would leave a president “unbounded while in office.”

“The most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country,” Jackson told Sauer.

Sauer raised hypothetical scenarios involving past U.S. presidents being charged for official actions taken in office.

He asked whether George W. Bush could be prosecuted for obstructing an official proceeding for allegedly lying to Congress to justify the Iraq war, or Barack Obama charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad with drone strikes, or Biden charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally, based on his border policies.

“The answer to all these questions is no,” Sauer said.

“If a president can be charged, put on trial and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed,” Sauer added.

Dreeben sought to downplay those worries.

“I do think that there are layered safeguards that the court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about unduly chilling presidential conduct,” Dreeben responded. “That concerns us. We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecution in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence. A politically driven prosecution would violate the Constitution.”

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked Sauer whether “the very robust form of immunity” he was requesting was really necessary to protect “the proper functioning of the presidency” – or if something short of absolute immunity would suffice.

But Alito also picked up on Sauer’s concerns. Alito said that if an incumbent president who loses a hotly contested re-election bid, as Trump did in 2020, knows he may be “criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent – will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor added to that.

“Justice Alito went through, step by step, all of the mechanisms that could potentially fail. In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own, isn’t it?” Sotomayor asked Dreeben.

“It is, Justice Sotomayor,” Dreeben responded.

(Reporting by Will Dunham; Editing by Daniel Wallis)


Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Steve Davidson says:

    That this is even a topic for discussion shows that the US Supreme Court has been captured by a bunch of crooks with far right wing evangelical tendencies and fascist beliefs who are determined to ensure Trump is reelected and can destroy democracy there is beyond belief. I believe it is the end of the world as we know it.

  • Skinyela Skinyela says:

    Saucer should know that there is a difference between controversial decisions and criminality.

    Even directors of the board in limited liability companies knows that limited liability is not absolute and does not extend to immunity from criminal prosecution.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

A South African Hero: You

There’s a 99.7% chance that this isn’t for you. Only 0.3% of our readers have responded to this call for action.

Those 0.3% of our readers are our hidden heroes, who are fuelling our work and impacting the lives of every South African in doing so. They’re the people who contribute to keep Daily Maverick free for all, including you.

The equation is quite simple: the more members we have, the more reporting and investigations we can do, and the greater the impact on the country.

Be part of that 0.3%. Be a Maverick. Be a Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

MavericKids vol 3

How can a child learn to read if they don't have a book?

81% of South African children aged 10 can't read for meaning. You can help by pre-ordering a copy of MavericKids.

For every copy sold we will donate a copy to Gift of The Givers for children in need of reading support.