Is the Supreme Court about to hand Donald Trump another legal lifeline?
Today, after three hours of arguments before the justices, that scenario at least seemed possible. The court’s conservative majority — which Trump himself helped to create — signaled that it was leaning toward narrowing the scope of the criminal case in which he stands accused of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.
The dramatic hearing concerned what many legal experts have always thought was a long-shot defense against the election interference case: that Trump is completely immune from prosecution on the charges because they arose from actions he took while he was president.
While the court did not appear to buy those sweeping claims in their entirety, it did seem interested in the notion that presidents should enjoy some form of immunity. Over and over, the justices circled around the idea that presidents probably were protected from prosecution for actions central to how they carried out their jobs, but likely could face charges for conduct that was private in nature. Extending even limited immunity from criminal prosecution to presidents would be a historic ruling from the court.
So how would all of this affect Trump?
From the start of the election interference case, federal prosecutors — led by the special counsel Jack Smith — have argued that Trump was acting not in his public role as an officeholder, but rather in his private role as an office seeker, when he undertook an array of schemes to illegally stay in power.
Smith’s indictment, for example, claims that Trump the candidate enlisted the Justice Department in validating his claims that the election was marred by widespread fraud. And it documented how he waged a pressure campaign against his own vice president, Mike Pence, to block or delay certification of President Biden’s victory during a proceeding at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
