Marissa Zupancic is JURIST’s Washington DC Correspondent, a JURIST Senior Editor and a 3L on the College of Pittsburgh Faculty of Legislation. She’s stationed in Washington throughout her Semester in DC.
At the moment I attended oral arguments on the US Supreme Court docket for Trump v. US, a case regarding whether or not a president has absolute immunity after they go away workplace for actions they took whereas president. This marks my last Supreme Court docket attendance as JURIST’s inaugural Washington DC Correspondent. Strolling as much as the court docket at 8 AM, there have been solely a handful of protesters, and I acknowledged some from after I attended arguments in February in Trump v. Anderson.
The oral arguments had been scheduled for an hour however lasted almost three hours. This time, I might truly see Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the attorneys presenting arguments to the court docket, however I nonetheless had an obstructed view behind one of many acorn-laden gates.
John Sauer offered arguments for Trump. Sauer started his argument by wanting on the distinctive nature of this case, stating, “With out presidential immunity from legal prosecution, there will be no presidency as we all know it. For 234 years of American historical past, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts.” Going additional, Sauer introduced up the results of this case. Sauer requested whether or not President Obama might face homicide prices for killing People abroad by ordering drone strikes. This instance stands in distinction to the fees dealing with Trump handed down in an indictment from August 2023, together with:
- Conspiring to defraud the US via dishonesty, fraud and deceit in an effort to impair, impede and defeat the method by which votes are collected, counted and licensed by the federal authorities;
- Conspiring to corruptly obstruct and impede the US Congress of their effort to gather, depend and certify election outcomes on January 6, 2021; and
- Conspiring towards the rights of US citizens to vote and to have that vote depend
Sauer argued that former presidents possess “absolute immunity,” stopping them from prosecution for official actions they took whereas holding the workplace of the president. Justice Clarence Thomas requested Sauer to state the supply of this absolute immunity, which Sauer claimed stems from Article II, Section 1 of the US Structure. This part is called the Govt Vesting Clause. This clause states, partially, “The chief Energy shall be vested in a President of the US of America.” Sauer additional posited that the president’s “official acts” are shielded from scrutiny from the judicial system, as nicely.
Chief Justice John Roberts subsequent requested Sauer to elaborate on the scope of a president’s official acts. Sauer defined that prior Supreme Court docket precedent held that accepting a bribe to nominate an individual as an envoy just isn’t an official act, however appointing an individual based mostly on substantive causes, like in the event that they meet sure {qualifications}, would fall below the president’s official acts.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor examined the scope of Sauer’s immunity argument. She requested, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt individual and he orders the navy or orders somebody to assassinate him, is that inside his official acts for which he can get immunity?” Sauer responded in typical lawyer trend with, basically, “it relies upon,” however he might see a perspective the place that motion might be an official act coated by this “absolute immunity.’ Sotomayor defined that she considered official acts as separate from the assassination hypothetical as a result of the hypothetical could be executed for private acquire, relatively than official duties. She summed up what she thought Sauer’s argument was when she said, “A president is entitled to complete private acquire to make use of the trimmings of his workplace – that’s what you’re making an attempt to get us to carry – with out dealing with legal legal responsibility.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson introduced up former President Richard Nixon’s pardon from former President Gerald Ford following the Watergate scandal. Sauer defined that all through historical past, presidents didn’t imagine they’d be topic to prosecution. Jackson questioned why, if this was the case, did Nixon get a pardon from Ford if he wouldn’t have confronted prosecution? Sauer differentiated this set of info, stating that Nixon was below investigation for each official acts and personal acts. From right here, Justice Amy Coney Barrett confirmed that Sauer agreed non-public actions, separate from official acts, by a former president don’t qualify for immunity.
Justice Elena Kagan raised the purpose that there is no such thing as a specific immunity clause within the Structure. She stated, “The Framers knew methods to [put an immunity clause in the Constitution]. There have been immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew methods to give legislative immunity. They didn’t present immunity to the president.” Sauer rebutted this argument by restating that the Govt Vesting Clause offers immunity to a president. Moreover, Kagan requested Sauer whether or not a president could be immune from ordering the navy to launch a coup, to which Sauer instructed there could be immunity with out impeachment.
Michael Dreeben gave arguments for the US with the Division of Justice. In his opening assertion, he additionally touched on the unprecedented nature of this case, when he said, “This court docket has by no means acknowledged absolute legal immunity for any public official.”
Roberts questioned Dreeben on whether or not there are acceptable safeguards in place to stop politically motivated prosecution of former presidents if the court docket holds there is no such thing as a absolute immunity. Dreeben defined, “We’re not endorsing a regime that we predict would expose former presidents to legal prosecution in dangerous religion, for political animus, with out sufficient proof. A politically pushed prosecution would violate the structure.” In Wayte v. United States, the Supreme Court docket held in 1985 that selective prosecution is unconstitutional. Dreeben additionally defined {that a} prosecutor nonetheless will need to have sufficient proof to warrant a grand jury to indict a former president to fulfill constitutional necessities.
Dreeben additionally said there are components of appearing as president that Congress can not criminalize, which make up the manager’s core duties. These embody overseas recognition and making judicial appointments, amongst others.
In response to Justice Samuel Alito’s questions, Dreeben defined that it’s an absolute protection to a legal cost that the president was appearing below the authorized counsel of the US Legal professional Common. For instance, a president can ask the legal professional common any authorized questions, reminiscent of whether or not a possible motion is lawful. If the legal professional common says that an motion is lawful, this might function a protection to prices introduced towards that president down the road.
Lastly, Alito requested Dreeben if a president has the fitting to pardon themself, to which Dreeben responded that the Division of Justice had not taken an official stance on that argument. Nonetheless, Dreeben famous there was a memo written from the Workplace of Authorized Counsel that instructed a president can not write a self-pardon.
After the arguments, there was a raucous scene outdoors. A person wearing what appeared to be Revolutionary Warfare apparel had a speaker setup with a microphone and guitar, singing songs. He carried out on a small stage subsequent to an indication that claimed to painting photographs of “actual dictators” like Kim Jong Un. Over his singing, one other protester was shouting “Identify an even bigger fool than Trump!” right into a megaphone. Moreover, there was extra police presence than at Trump v. Anderson, with Capitol Police patrolling the streets and Supreme Court docket Police surrounding the constructing. This elevated police might have been in response to when a person died after lighting himself on fireplace outdoors of the New York courthouse internet hosting Trump’s hush cash trial.
The court docket’s historic resolution will form future prosecutions the previous president is dealing with. In the meantime, Trump continues to lead in main voting and is prone to be named the Republican nominee in July.
Over the my 4 months as JURIST’s Washington Correspondent, I’ve had the possibility to attend three oral arguments on the Supreme Court docket. Two of those arguments had been particularly historic, involving a former US president and present presidential candidate. Working for JURIST has supplemented my authorized training, pulling me outdoors of my regulation faculty constructing and into real-world authorized change. Sitting subsequent to skilled reporters as a regulation scholar journalist was an important privilege, and I’m eternally grateful for this expertise!
Opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely these of our correspondents within the area and don’t essentially mirror the views of JURIST’s editors, employees, donors or the College of Pittsburgh.
Source / Picture: jurist.org
