In Trump hearing, SCOTUS majority suggests presidents may have some criminal immunity

Not all of the justices agreed, however -- and a decision is expected by June.

ByAlexandra Hutzler, Meredith Deliso, Alexander Mallin, and Mike Levine
Last Updated: April 25, 2024, 9:09 AM EDT

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

The justices grappled with the monumental question of if -- and if so, to what extent -- former presidents enjoy immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts during their time in office.

Trump claims "absolute" protection for what he calls official acts, though he denies all wrongdoing. The high court divided over this, but most of the conservative-leaning justices in the majority seemed open to some version of it while still excluding a president's "private" conduct.

The high court's ruling will determine if Trump stands trial before the November election on four charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. A decision is expected by June.

Latest headlines:

Here are highlights from the hearing.
Apr 25, 2024, 10:11 AM EDT

1st questions from Thomas: Where does immunity come from?

Justice Clarence Thomas opened questioning by getting to the heart of the case: where is the "source" of presidential immunity and how would the court come to decide what acts fall under that scope.

First, he asked Trump's attorney to be "more precise as to the source" of supposed presidential immunity.

John Sauer responded that it comes from the executive vesting clause of the Constitution.

Thomas then pressed how exactly the court would "determine what an official act is," to which Sauer said acts fall within the “outer perimeter” of a president's official duties.

Apr 25, 2024, 10:11 AM EDT

Trump's attorney: 'Every current president will face de facto blackmail'

Trump's attorney, John Sauer, addressed the justices first, saying in his opening statement that unless presidents are granted the absolute immunity that Trump seeks, "Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office."

Sauer also called out controversial policies of other commanders in chief, such as George W. Bush's regarding the Iraq War and a Barack Obama-approved drone strike against a U.S. citizen as part of anti-terrorism operations overseas, while saying the implications of the court's decision here "extend far beyond the facts of this case."

Apr 25, 2024, 10:02 AM EDT

Arguments are underway

Oral arguments have begun in Donald J. Trump v. United States.

Arguing for Trump is attorney D. John Sauer. Presenting for Smith is Michael R. Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases before the nation's high court.

Apr 25, 2024, 9:59 AM EDT

Trump, on trial in New York, contends president 'has to have immunity'

As Trump headed into court on Thursday morning for his ongoing trial in New York (he has pleaded not guilty), he continued to weigh in on the presidential immunity case.

"I think that the Supreme Court has a very important argument before it today," he told reporters as he entered the hallway inside a Manhattan courtroom for his hush money trial. "I would have loved to have been there but this judge would not allow me to be there."

Former President Donald Trump arrives at Manhattan criminal court in New York, Apr. 25, 2024.
Jeenah Moon/POOL via Reuters

Trump argued that the president "has to have immunity," repeating a claim that federal prosecutors and some judges have so far said would upend the rule of law.

"This has to do with a president in the future for 100 years from now," he said. "If you don't have immunity, you're not going to do anything. You're going to become a ceremonial president. It's just going to be doing nothing, you're not going to take any of the risks, both good and bad."

-ABC News' Kelsey Walsh and Michael Pappano