In historic Trump hearing, Supreme Court majority suggests presidents may have some criminal immunity
Not all of the justices agreed, however -- and a decision is expected by June.
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:
See court sketches from inside court
The Supreme Court notably does not allow cameras inside its courtroom during arguments, meaning that sketch artists provide the only visual representation of some of the country's most defining legal moments.
Here are three sketches from the Trump arguments on Thursday -- of the justices and the attorneys for each side.
'Quite amazing. The justices were on their game,' Trump says
Trump reacted to the arguments before the justices later on Thursday afternoon after he left court for the day amid his hush money trial in New York, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
“I think it was made clear, I hope it was made clear, that a president has to have immunity," he said, repeating a familiar talking point. "You don't have a president -- or at most you could say it would be a ceremonial president. That's not what the founders had in mind.”
He continued, ”We want presidents that can get things done and bring people together. So I heard the meeting was quite amazing. Quite amazing. The justices were on their game.”
Trump did not answer shouted questions from the press.
-ABC News' Kelsey Walsh, Mike Pappano and Jianna Cousin
5 takeaways: Hypotheticals dominate, conservatives and liberals raise different worries and more
As various justices themselves acknowledged, they could potentially reshape the contours of presidential power when they rule on Trump's case.
Click here to read five takeaways from the historic arguments.
10 key moments from the arguments
The oral arguments, stretching nearly three hours and with demonstrators gathered outside, included several notable and important exchanges.
Here are 10 of the key moments -- including discussion of potential self-pardons, Franklin D. Roosevelt and more.
Read more here.
Kagan notes founding fathers didn't put in immunity clause: 'President was not a monarch'
As the questioning of Trump's attorney continues, Justice Elena Kagan noted that the framers of the Constitution consciously did not put in an explicit presidential immunity clause.
"They didn't provide immunity to the president," she told lawyer John Sauer. "And you know, not so surprising, they were reacting to a monarch who claimed to be against the law. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?"
In response, Sauer argued that the framers did put in an immunity clause "in a sense" with the executive vesting clause and that they adopted impeachment as a "structural check," which is a major part of Trump's defense against his federal charges.
"They did discuss and consider what would be the checks on the presidency and they did not say we would have criminal prosecution," Sauer said. "Everybody cried out against that as unconstitutional."
