The U.S. Supreme Court seemed skeptical of former President Donald Trump’s argument for presidential immunity, but court looked likely to favor Trump in another way: its timing.
During Thursday’s two-hour arguments, several justices expressed reservations about the charges, which could lead to a lengthy delay in the trial, possibly extending beyond the November election.
While a majority of the justices did not seem to support Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, which would halt special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution, some conservative justices suggested that there might be limits on when former presidents can be prosecuted. This could result in the case being sent back to lower courts before a trial can begin.
Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that the court’s decision would apply to all future presidents, highlighting the far-reaching implications of the case.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision is crucial, as Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the election. If Trump regains the presidency, he could order the Justice Department to dismiss the case or even pardon himself if convicted, as suggested by two justices during the arguments.
The active questioning by all nine justices indicated that a quick, consensus decision allowing for a speedy trial is unlikely. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of Trump’s three high court appointees, along with Justice Alito, expressed concern about the ruling’s effect on future presidencies rather than the specific case against Trump.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, appeared less receptive to arguments made by Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, and seemed to be searching for a way to allow the trial to proceed.
The court has moved swiftly in previous cases involving presidential power, such as the Watergate tapes case against the late President Richard Nixon, which was decided just 16 days after arguments. However, the complex nature of this case and the justices’ concerns suggest that a speedy resolution is unlikely.
Trump, who is the first former president to have been indicted in a criminal court, had expressed his desire to be present at the Supreme Court on Thursday. Instead, he was in a courtroom in New York, standing trial on charges related to hush money payments to a former porn star.
During the arguments, Trump’s lawyer argued that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for their official acts to prevent politically motivated prosecutions and ensure that presidents can function as commanders in chief without worrying about criminal charges. Lower courts have rejected these arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, D.C.
The election interference conspiracy case brought by Smith in Washington is just one of four criminal cases facing Trump. Smith’s team argues that the Constitution’s authors never intended for presidents to be above the law and that the acts Trump is charged with, such as participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden, are not part of a president’s official duties.
The court has several options for deciding the case, with an outcome between a complete win for Trump or prosecutors seeming most likely. The justices might clarify when former presidents are shielded from prosecution and either declare that Trump’s alleged conduct crossed the line or return the case to the lower court for further consideration.
The Horn editorial team