The Supreme Court weighed in on whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for conduct allegedly involving official acts.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.
The Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
SCOTUS WEIGHS MONUMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL FIGHT OVER TRUMP IMMUNITY CLAIM
The question stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged former President Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.
Those charges stem from Smith’s months-long investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president of the U.S.
Smith’s case against the former president and its trial have been pending amid the high court’s consideration of the issue.
The justices heard arguments from Trump attorney John Sauer and Michael Dreeben, a Justice Department attorney representing Special Counsel Jack Smith, on April 25 on whether presidents should have "absolute immunity."
During those arguments, both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications of the question for future presidents but raised sharply different concerns.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned the repercussions of charging a former president.
"Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible nullity after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent," Alito asked.
"Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail," he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden, asked if the "potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?"
"If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes. I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country," she said.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes for the court's decision: "This will have huge implications for the presidency."
TRUMP WARNS THAT IF HE LOSES PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, SO WILL 'CROOKED' JOE BIDEN
"I’m not talking about the present, so I'm talking about the future," Kavanaugh said.
And Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed during questioning: "We're writing a rule for, yes, for the ages."
As for Alito's question, the former president has repeatedly claimed that he is being prosecuted by his political opponents, warning Americans and voters that all cases against him, in all jurisdictions, are being brought by his opponent — President Biden — and being done in coordination with the White House.
Meanwhile, the ruling comes after a New York jury found Trump guilty on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation.
