In the highly anticipated Supreme Court arguments on Thursday, Donald Trump’s quest for presidential immunity was compared to Richard Nixon’s case.
After evading criminal charges for Watergate through a presidential pardon, Nixon established the precedent for determining whether presidents can be subject to lawsuits.
Related posts
This Article Includes
- 0.1 Related posts
- 0.2 Officials: Building Is Unsafe To Occupy After The Floor Collapsed During The Maryland Fire
- 0.3 Tattooed Shooter Involved In Tag-team Assault For Shooting Victim In The Face In Jackson: Prosecutor
- 1 Trump trial already delayed
- 2 New territory for Supreme Court
- 3 `President Trump has become citizen Trump’
- 4 `A hard case to game out’
- 5 Tough to go to trial before election
- 6 Not a fast process
An Air Force weapons analyst filed a lawsuit against Nixon, alleging that he was terminated in a retaliatory manner after disclosing to Congress about significant cost overruns within the Defense Department.
The Supreme Court, in a closely divided decision in 1982, ruled that President Nixon could not be held accountable for his official actions. The Court argued that civil suits against the president would be too disruptive and could hinder his ability to fulfill his duties effectively.
The Supreme Court will now hear oral arguments on April 25 regarding the question of whether the same logic should be applied to Trump’s endeavor to dismiss the federal criminal charges associated with his alleged attempt to manipulate the 2020 election.
Experts believe that the justices are inclined to dismiss Trump’s assertion of absolute immunity. However, the timing of their opinion and whether a majority agrees that presidents have at least some level of immunity will have an impact on whether Trump can face trial before the November election.
“The court’s ruling on the case’s immediate continuation is the first and most crucial question,” stated Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general.
Trump trial already delayed
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal of the presumptive GOP nominee has already reduced the likelihood of completing the trial, which was originally scheduled to start in March, before the election.
Critics argue that the court’s delay in holding a trial may have inadvertently granted Trump immunity. If Trump were to win the election, he would be in a powerful position to dismiss the Justice Department’s case against him.
New York University law professor Melissa Murray expressed her strong criticism of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions, stating that they have provided Donald Trump with effective immunity. She voiced her concerns during a recent event organized by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
According to Stanley Brand, a former House general counsel who has represented Trump aides in legal battles, there is no requirement in criminal law for cases involving candidates to adhere to an election timeline.
According to Brand, the idea that the criminal justice system exists solely to influence the voting decisions of the public is completely wrong and misrepresents its true purpose. He emphasizes that the criminal justice system is not driven by public opinion, but rather focuses on protecting the rights of the defendant and ensuring that the government has fulfilled its obligations.
New territory for Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is facing a unique situation as Trump becomes the first president, whether former or current, to face criminal charges.
In the high court case, Trump faces accusations of attempting to overturn the 2020 election by spreading false information about election fraud. He is also accused of trying to persuade state officials, his vice president, and Congress to prevent the certification of the valid results. It’s important to note that this case is separate from the criminal charges he is facing in state courts in New York and Georgia, as well as in federal court in Florida.
In his defense, Trump is relying on the 1982 Supreme Court decision, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, as a potential savior. This landmark ruling established that presidents enjoy immunity from civil damages for official acts, even those that fall within the “outer perimeter of a president’s official responsibilities.” Trump hopes that this legal precedent will shield him from any potential legal consequences, both during his time in office and after.
`President Trump has become citizen Trump’
Trump is seeking to expand the protection currently afforded to sitting presidents to criminal cases as well. His legal team asserts that the potential for future prosecution and imprisonment could be weaponized as a political tool, compromising the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the presidency.
In their main brief previewing their oral argument, the lawyers argued that denying criminal immunity to a president would render them vulnerable to blackmail and extortion while in office. They further asserted that it would subject them to prolonged post-office trauma inflicted by political opponents.
The judge presiding over Trump’s trial at the federal district level and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did not accept this argument.
The appeals court panel unanimously rejected Trump’s claim in the criminal case, emphasizing that for the purpose of this case, he is now referred to as citizen Trump and is entitled to the same defenses as any other criminal defendant.
The court emphasized that the public’s interest in the enforcement of criminal laws is significant, even if Trump’s actions were performed in his official capacity rather than as a candidate. This is especially relevant in a case involving a presidential election, according to the court.
According to special prosecutor Jack Smith, President Gerald Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon serves as evidence that presidents have never assumed immunity from criminal prosecution.
`A hard case to game out’
According to Alex Reinert, a criminal law expert at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump’s appeal reflects the significance of the issue of presidential immunity.
According to Reinert, a former clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer, the justices will aim to examine the extent of immunity that strikes a balance between upholding the rule of law and providing presidential protection against unfounded and burdensome prosecutions.
“I believe predicting the outcome of this case is quite challenging,” he expressed. “However, I do think it ultimately depends on the court’s interpretation of the boundaries of the rules that they deem manageable and justifiable. The court needs to establish a principled line that can be effectively implemented and does not result in significant negative consequences. Nevertheless, I am confident that the court has considerable flexibility in determining the most suitable rule.”
Some people are hopeful that the court will issue a limited ruling that focuses solely on Trump’s case, without delving into other potential scenarios.
Former Obama White House ethics czar Norm Eisen criticized Donald Trump for his assertion of absolute immunity, calling it outrageous, unprecedented, and ahistorical. According to Eisen, the Supreme Court should focus solely on the case at hand and not be swayed by Trump’s actions. He believes that the Court should make a decision on this matter.
Tough to go to trial before election
Trump is seeking widespread protection if the Supreme Court decides that presidents are only immune from criminal prosecution in certain situations. He wants the court to mandate that any “fact-based” test be applied through further proceedings before his trial can commence.
According to the court, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith emphasized that any qualifications placed on immunity should not cause any delays in the trial.
According to Reinert, if the justices side with Smith, a trial could potentially commence before the election, although it may not conclude within that timeframe.
According to the expert, it seems highly unlikely that a trial will take place before November. However, he does acknowledge the possibility of it happening.
Not a fast process
According to John Yoo, a former Justice Department official under George W. Bush, he believes that while Trump’s broad immunity argument may not be successful, there is still room for Trump to contest some of the charges.
During a Federalist Society preview of the case, Yoo expressed his belief that the court would reject immunity but still allow the individual to proceed with their substantive attacks on the indictment.
According to Brand, even ordinary white-collar cases that he has been involved in can take several years to proceed to trial.
According to him, there is a misconception that this is a quick process, but in reality, it usually takes longer than expected.
