Is Donald Trump immune from criminal prosecution? This is what Supreme Court judges have said
Supreme Court grapples with immunity
This question was raised Thursday during the US Supreme Court hearing of the case. The apex court discussed how to define the scope of presidential immunity. Seeking to draw a line between the president’s personal and official acts, it suggested sending the matter back to lower courts to evaluate the nature of Trump’s actions.
It may further delay the case. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has already delayed the start of Trump’s trial.
What did justices say?
Significantly, a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court did not appear inclined to accept the claim that as a former president, Trump enjoys blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. However, some of them appeared to favor some form of presidential immunity for what may be considered “official acts.”
Chief Justice John Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, expressed “concerns” with a lower court ruling on the immunity question that paved the way for Trump’s prosecution.
Justice Samuel Alito
Justice Samuel Alito, an archconservative, asked why without immunity, presidents won’t pardon themselves before leaving office “from anything that they might have been conceivably charged with committing?”
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas, another staunch conservative, asked Special Counsel Michael Dreeben why there had not been any previous prosecutions of a former president.
Liberal justices against immunity
On the other hand, the three liberals on the court, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, pushed back hard against the notion of blanket presidential immunity.
Kagan asked whether a president who “sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary” should be immune from prosecution.
FAQs
In which case has Donald Trump sought immunity?
Donald Trump has sought to drop the criminal charges after his alleged involvement in trying to overturn the 2020 election results.
What happened at the Supreme Court?
The apex court discussed how to define the scope of presidential immunity. Seeking to draw a line between the president’s personal and official acts, it suggested sending the matter back to lower courts to evaluate the nature of Trump’s actions.
Disclaimer Statement: This content is authored by a 3rd party. The views expressed here are that of the respective authors/ entities and do not represent the views of Economic Times (ET). ET does not guarantee, vouch for or endorse any of its contents nor is responsible for them in any manner whatsoever. Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that any information and content provided is correct, updated, and verified. ET hereby disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, relating to the report and any content therein.
Source link
