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.
Trump's attorneys reverse their stance on prosecuting a president
As Smith's team has noted in arguing against Trump, the former president's lawyers during his second Senate impeachment trial said in very clear terms that they believed a president could in fact be criminally prosecuted by the Department of Justice -- the opposite of what his legal team is currently arguing.
"If my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think that President Trump committed a criminal offense -- and let's understand, a high crime is a felony and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor; the words haven't changed that much over time -- after he is out of office, you go and arrest him," one of his attorneys said in opening statements during his impeachment trial in 2021, shortly after Jan. 6.
"We have a judicial process in this country, we have an investigative process in this country, to which no former officeholder is immune,” Trump's attorney said then.
But now, facing federal charges related to Jan. 6, Trump's lawyers argue a president can only be prosecuted if he is impeached, convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
The Senate in his second impeachment trial acquitted, though a majority of lawmakers voted to convict him.
-ABC News' Katherine Faulders
