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:
Supreme Court's decision will directly impact when, if, Trump stands trial
How fast the justices move in making a determination will impact whether Trump stands trial before the November election -- if at all.
Experts point to how the court handled Bush v. Gore, when the justices intervened to end a ballot recount and effectively hand George W. Bush the presidency in the 2000 election. In United States v. Nixon, the Watergate scandal tapes case, the Supreme Court heard arguments July 8, 1974, and issued its opinion rejecting his claim of executive privilege 16 days later.
It’s not clear whether the court will move with such speed. The opinions are expected to be released before the court’s term ends in June.
The justices could uphold the lower court decision rejecting immunity in its entirety, clearing the way for a trial this summer. Or they could kick the can down the road by sending the case back to lower courts for further proceedings -- which some conservative justices floated during arguments. Such an outcome could rule out a trial before the end of the year.
Read more about timing in the case here.
Court adjourns
Oral arguments came to an end after two hours and 40 minutes.
Trump attorney declined to give a rebuttal, and the case was submitted.
'We're writing a rule for the ages'
Throughout arguments, multiple of the justices made clear they were looking past the immediate example of Trump to what their decision will mean for the future of the presidency.
"We're writing a rule for the ages," Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
"This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency and for the future of the country, in my view," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"Whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents," said Justice Samuel Alito.
Alito suggests some sympathy toward Trump's position
Justice Samuel Alito has multiple times over the course of questioning sounded sympathetic toward Trump's positions.
He also seemed to raise concerns about former presidents suffering the burden of having to go through a trial if they are criminally charged.
"That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time, and during the trial the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in, and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury and how the jury returns a verdict, and then it has to be taken up on appeal," Alito said at one point.
In his final question to government attorney Michael Dreeben, Alito seemed to suggest that Trump's prosecution could serve to incentivize future presidents to try and unlawfully remain in office in order to avoid prosecution by their successors.
"Now, if an incumbent who loses a close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement -- but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent. Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?" Alito asked.
"I think it is exactly the opposite, Justice Alito," Dreeben replied, noting Trump and his allies filed dozens of lawful challenges to the results of the election and lost.
"There is an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence," Dreeben said. "If you lose, you accept the results, that has been the nation's experience, I think the court is well familiar with that."