Donald Trump’s lawyers launched a legal attack. A president of the United States, they maintain, should be immune from criminal prosecution for acts he carries out while in office, even if he orders a special forces commando to assassinate his political rivals. Only Congress can judge him, but not the courts, not even when he leaves office. This Thursday, the Supreme Court debates the scope of presidential immunity in a hearing of enormous importance for Trump’s judicial (and perhaps electoral) future.
In criminal matters, Trump is a simultaneous protagonist in several tracks of the judicial circus. This Thursday he sits again in the dock for the New York case related to payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels. While he is being tried in Manhattan, the Supreme Court will discuss the president’s immunity in the electoral interference case that is being pursued against him in Washington. The former president has two other charges (in Florida and Georgia), in addition to several civil litigation and ongoing investigations.
The discussion about alleged presidential immunity has special significance. If the judges agree, it would mean shelving the Washington case, but it would also have effects on at least part of the charges in the other accusations. Trump plays at home, before a court with a conservative supermajority of six judges to three, in which three of the justices were appointed by the former president himself. That does not guarantee victory. In the Court of Appeals, even the judge appointed by Trump ruled that there was no case for immunity.
Trump has tried to turn the tables on the facts with which he tried to alter the electoral result to prevent Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election from being certified. What the president now maintains is that he was trying to preserve the cleanliness and integrity of the electoral process. It is the way to defend that he was exercising his presidential functions and that is why he deserves immunity. The alternative, acknowledging that what he was trying to do was cheat, would be an argument less likely to convince the judges that he deserved that immunity.
In addition to establishing a potentially historic ruling on the scope of presidential power, the court’s decision, whatever it is, will go a long way toward determining a trial date for Trump in the Washington trial, one of four he faces. President. It was the one that had the earliest trial start date set, on March 4, but it was precisely Trump’s appeals alleging immunity (and the Supreme Court’s lack of haste to analyze the case) that have been postponing the trial. . The judge has frozen the case since December.
The Supreme Court ruling is not expected, in principle, until June. That way, even if he is denied immunity, the schedule will be very tight. It is difficult for the trial on the attempt to steal the 2020 elections to be held before the 2024 elections. And if Trump wins at the polls, he could even drop the charges or pardon himself.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.
Subscribe
Trump is the first former president to face criminal charges, making it the first time in US history that the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to rule on this issue. Although Justice Department policy prevents the indictment of a sitting president, there is no obstacle to indicting a former president.
An important precedent
Trump’s lawyers warn of a possible avalanche of lawsuits against former presidents if they are not protected by immunity. They maintain that the position cannot function if the president has to worry about possible criminal charges. Trump’s thesis is that if he is tried, a spigot is opened and “the threat of a future criminal accusation by a politically opposed Administration will overshadow all the official acts of the future president, especially the most politically controversial decisions.” according to one of the documents presented to the Court.
Additionally, they cite a previous Supreme Court ruling that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, stating that the same analysis should apply in the criminal sphere.
Judges could simply reject the immunity claim outright or declare for the first time that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for conduct related to official acts during their term, but there are also intermediate possibilities. One of them would be to rule that former presidents retain some immunity for their official acts, but not absolute. If so, they could choose to rule on whether immunity is granted in this case, but they could also establish their doctrine and return the case to Judge Tanya Chutkan so that she can decide according to those criteria if the actions for which they are accused to Trump constituted official acts.
Both Judge Chutkan and the Court of Appeals rejected the former president’s immunity in very strong terms. “Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States only has one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifetime pass out of prison,” Judge Chutkan said in the first instance. instance.
“For purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that could have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this accusation,” said the ruling by the three judges of the Court of Appeals. “It would be a surprising paradox if the president, who has the ultimate constitutional duty of ensuring faithful compliance with the laws, were the only position capable of challenging them with impunity,” they developed.
In the charge sheet for this case, which marked Trump’s third indictment, special prosecutor Jack Smith accuses him of four crimes: conspiracy to defraud the US Government, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction or attempted obstruction of a proceeding. officer and conspiracy to violate civil rights.
The judges discussed last week the validity of applying the crime of obstruction of an official procedure for the assault on the Capitol. The official act interrupted was the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential elections. The judges were divided on the interpretation of the rule. However, the most skeptical voices were those of the conservative judges, who have a majority of six to three, so the sentence may end up benefiting Trump. Two of the four crimes charged against Trump in the Washington trial for interference in the election result have to do with the assault on the Capitol.