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:
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."
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
What the Constitution, framers said about presidential immunity
There is "nothing in the text of the Constitution that speaks to immunity in one way or another," said David Schultz, a national expert in constitutional law.
But there is textual evidence from the Constitution's framers -- including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton -- about how they viewed the issue.
"We have language from some framers indicating that even if there might have been some immunity while a person was president of the United States, once they've left office there's no immunity and they could be charged with the crime," Schultz said.
Read more about what history says about immunity here.
The scene outside, with a few anti-Trump demonstrators
Just a few demonstrators stood in front of the Supreme Court -- which is wrapped in security fencing -- ahead of the hearing Thursday morning.
They held signs including ones that read "Absolute immunity = absolute tyranny" and "Loser."
-ABC News' Devin Dwyer
What Americans have said of Smith’s indictment, Trump’s immunity claim
When Smith handed down his charges in August 2023, a majority of Americans (51%) thought the indictment was very serious, according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll taken shortly after. Overall, 65% of adults thought then that the charges were serious, including 51% who said they were very serious and 14% who said they were somewhat serious.
At the time, a plurality of Americans (49%) said Trump should suspend his presidential campaign, while 36% said he shouldn't.
On Trump’s immunity claim, an overwhelming number of Americans (66%) thought in that poll that the former president should not be immune to criminal prosecution for actions he took while president, according to an ABC News/Ipsos February poll. That included 45% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. Independents fell in between at 66%.
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.