The Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump’s immunity claim and sets arguments for April
The Supreme Court on Wednesday moved to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.
The judges scheduled oral arguments for the week of April 22 and said court proceedings would remain frozen while they considered the case.
The court’s brief order states that the court will decide this question: “Whether, and if so, to what extent a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct that would constitute official acts while in office.”
The Supreme Court’s response to Mr. Trump’s request for a delay had become increasingly urgent as the final resolution would determine whether and how quickly Mr. Trump could appear in court. That, in turn, could affect his electoral prospects and, should he be re-elected, his ability to thwart the prosecution.
In a emergency application Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene a unanimous panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had been wrong in ruling that he could face criminal charges for his conduct as president. Total immunity for his official conduct, Mr. Trump’s filing said, is required by the separation of powers implicit in presidential impeachment proceedings and necessary to prevent partisan abuse of the criminal justice system.
“The lack of criminal immunity for official acts threatens the President’s ability to function properly,” the filing said. “Any decision by the president on a politically controversial issue would come with the threat of indictment by the opposing party after a change of government.”
Mr. Trump, widely considered the Republican front-runner, added a practical concern.
“Conducting a months-long criminal trial against President Trump at the height of the election season will radically disrupt President Trump’s ability to campaign against President Biden — which appears to be the entire point of the special counsel’s continued demands for expedition.” , the application said. “The DC Circuit’s order therefore threatens to cause immediate irreparable harm to the interests of President Trump and tens of millions of American voters, who have a right to hear President Trump’s campaign message as they decide how to vote in November.”
Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing Mr. Trump’s federal prosecutions, brought up for discussion with every element of his argument, citing his attempts to undermine democracy.
If Trump’s “radical claim were accepted,” Smith wrote, “it would upend the views of presidential responsibility that have prevailed throughout history while undermining democracy and the rule of law—especially when , as here, a former president would be accused of committing crimes to remain in power despite losing an election, thereby attempting to undermine constitutional procedures for the transfer of power and disenfranchising millions of voters.”
Mr. Smith added that there is no reason to fear prosecutions that would prevent other presidents from taking decisive action.
“That dystopian vision runs counter to the checks and balances built into our institutions and the framework of the Constitution,” Mr. Smith wrote.
In a supporting assignment While urging the justices to deny Trump’s request for a stay, several former prominent officials who had served in Republican administrations said the court did not need to issue a broad ruling because the conduct of which Mr. Trump is accused is so clearly fell outside the immunity that the Constitution could provide. grant.
“Denying a stay would not preclude potential federal criminal immunity for official acts of a president in some other, exceptional situation,” the letter said.
Mr Smith reiterated this point and quoted the officials’ order. “A sufficient basis for resolving this case would be that, regardless of the rule in other contexts not presented here,” he wrote, “there is no immunity from a president committing federal crimes to undermine the electoral process. ”