The Supreme Court heard fiery oral arguments on Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal charges for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The hearing saw Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, double down on the explosive claim that presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office – even if those acts include assassinating political rivals.
Sauer argued before the nation's highest court that "there can be no presidency as we know it" if former presidents aren't granted broad immunity from criminal charges stemming from official conduct during their tenure. When pressed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on whether this purported immunity would extend to ordering the military to assassinate a political opponent – a scenario Sauer previously affirmed to a federal appeals court – the attorney stood firm, suggesting such an act could be eligible for immunity "depending on the" circumstances.
The line of questioning took an even more ominous turn when Sauer was presented with the hypothetical of a president ordering a coup. Rather than condemn such an action, the attorney stated it "could well be" considered an official act subject to immunity, depending on the specifics of the situation.
The justices met Sauer's extraordinary claims with visible skepticism. Even the traditionally conservative Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether Trump's "very robust" definition of immunity is truly "necessary," while the liberal Justice Elena Kagan lambasted Sauer's coup argument as essentially saying, "Under my test, it's an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn't it."
Kagan further reminded the court that the Founding Fathers "were reacting to a monarch who claims to be above the law," challenging Sauer's assertions that presidents should be shielded from criminal liability. "Wasn't the whole point that the president is not supposed to be above the law?" she pointedly asked.
It remains unclear when the justices will issue their ruling on Trump's contested immunity claims. However, the timing of their decision could prove pivotal in determining whether the former president's federal election case proceeds to trial before or after the November elections. A swift ruling by late May could potentially allow the trial to commence ahead of the pivotal vote, while a judgment closer to the court's late June deadline would likely postpone proceedings until the fall.
The hearing was designed to determine whether former presidents could be prosecuted for acts carried out during their time in power. charges at the heart of this case are grave, with Trump facing four felony counts including conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction, and conspiracy against rights – all stemming from his relentless efforts to cling to power after his 2020 electoral defeat. Throughout the mounting legal battles, the former president has staunchly maintained his innocence, denouncing the criminal cases as politically motivated "witch hunts" designed to undermine his renewed presidential ambitions.
