During a historic Supreme Court argument, Chief Justice John Roberts kept his cards close to his vest, making some points clear while remaining noncommittal on the full merits of the case. He indicated that a lower court ruling denying Donald Trump absolute immunity would not stand and that the court cannot rely on the good faith of prosecutors. The election subversion allegations against Trump were deemed not relevant to the case at hand.
The signals from Roberts and other justices suggested that a majority would reject Trump’s broad proposition and find some criminal liability for former presidents who engaged in criminal acts while in office. However, Trump may benefit practically by avoiding charges arising from the 2020 election before the 2024 election. This could be seen as a gift from the conservative Supreme Court to the former president.
The tenor of the arguments in the Supreme Court differed from lower court rulings, with the focus on a former president’s potential exposure to retaliation by political opponents. The specific allegations against Trump, including his rejection of the election results and the Capitol attack, were largely avoided. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had highlighted these post-election activities, but Roberts found their opinion lacking and criticized it as circular and tautological.
Roberts refused to engage with the specifics of the allegations against Trump and instead criticized the appeals court for lacking grounding in their decision. The discussions in the Supreme Court focused more on the legal implications of prosecuting a former president rather than the events surrounding the 2020 election and its aftermath. Trump’s case could set a precedent for how former presidents are held accountable for their actions while in office.
Overall, the Supreme Court arguments suggested that Trump may not receive absolute immunity for his actions while in office, despite his attempts to avoid accountability. The justices, including Roberts, seemed inclined to reject Trump’s argument and find some level of criminal liability for his conduct. The final decision could have significant implications for the relationship between presidents and the law, setting a precedent for future cases involving former leaders. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications for the legal status of former presidents in the United States.
