In an unprecedented case in the history of the United States, lawyers representing former President Donald Trump will try to convince the Supreme Court on Thursday that their client has immunity from prosecution for acts allegedly committed while in office. state high.
The decision of the Supreme Court will be of immense importance. Mr. Trump is expected to secure the Republican Party’s nomination for the November presidential election. He is insisting on claims that he enjoys presidential immunity related to allegations that when he was president, he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to President Biden.
The trial related to these charges has been suspended pending the Supreme Court’s decision on Mr. Trump’s immunity claims. A quick ruling could pave the way for the trial to begin before November’s presidential election, while a delay would mean the trial could not take place at all. If Mr. Trump were to win the November election and a decision on the case was not made until after he takes office in January, there is a possibility that he would instruct the Justice Department to drop the charges.
The charges of the special prosecutor
The Supreme Court case stems from allegations brought last year by special prosecutor Jack Smith, appointed by the Department of Justice. Part of Mr. Smith’s job was to conduct an independent investigation into the former president’s actions between the November 2020 election and the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, in which Mr. Trump’s supporters tried to prevent the certification of victory. of Democrat Joe Biden.
According to the four-count indictment made public in August 2023, prosecutor Smith charged Mr. Trump with conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and attempting to pressure public officials to assist him. to overturn the result of the presidential elections.
Among other things, the lawsuit cites efforts by Mr. Trump and other advisers to provide members of Congress with false election results in several states and efforts to pressure state election officials to falsify records. Also, it is mentioned that Mr. Trump urged his supporters to go to the Capitol on January 6.
The case is being heard by a district court in Washington, but has been postponed several times because of Mr. Trump’s complaints that he should have immunity. The former President has addressed the appeals courts to express his immunity, asserting that a decision in his favor would overturn the processes being developed against him in the courts of lower levels.
Success of appeals
Former President Trump has consistently asserted that he enjoys presidential immunity from the investigation that extends to illegal acts he undertook while in office. He has used his social platform, ‘Truth Social’, writing in large letters that “WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY EXERCISE HIS FUNCTIONS, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES AT A RISK OF GREAT AND ETERNAL”.
In arguments before the appeals court, Mr. Trump’s lawyers gave examples of the broad scope of the former president’s claims, asserting that even if, as president, he would order the United States military to kill an opponent his political act, he could not be prosecuted unless he had previously been indicted by the House of Representatives and found guilty by the Senate.
In February, the members of the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the former President’s claims that he enjoys “absolute immunity” over the actions he performed while in office.
Mr. Trump appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which at the end of February announced that it would consider the case. The Supreme Court rejected the prosecution’s request to hear the arguments in an accelerated procedure, setting the case for April 25.
It is not known how long it may take the court to render its decision, while there is the possibility of a quick decision, traditionally, the court takes several months to draft its decision.
Delays cause concern
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider the case and its refusal to act with an accelerated procedure have been the subject of numerous criticisms, considering that the Appeal gave the decision unanimously as well as the possible benefits that will to have Mr. Trump from extending the delays.
Republican lawmaker Liz Cheney, who was part of the House of Representatives committee investigating Mr. Trump’s role in the January 6 attack, used the New York Timed’s opinion and editorial space to appeal to members of the court. to express themselves quickly with a decision on the case.
“If delays prevent the trial from proceeding this year, the public may never get to hear the critical and historical facts that the grand jury would have known, and our system may not hold the person most responsible for Jan. 6 to account.” “, she wrote.
However, some experts say that while some of the former President’s legal arguments may be weak, the court has an interest in approaching the issue of presidential immunity very carefully.
“Some aspects of this issue are quite easy,” Ilya Somin, professor of law at “George Maison” University, tells the Voice of America. “It would be easy to reject the idea that the President has total immunity.”
“It is likely that they have accepted the review of the case because they want to clarify more precisely the limits of immunity. It is reasonable to think that there will be a decision on presidential immunity in order to set a precedent and this precedent should be set by the Supreme Court”.
