Supreme Court justices are divided over the trial of former President Donald Trump. Jurors deliberated for three hours Thursday on whether he would be granted immunity from trial and what that would mean if he was granted immunity. The answer will determine whether former President Donald Trump faces trial on charges of trying to sabotage the 2020 election. But whatever the decision, each judge indicated that it would shape America’s future democracy. Judge Neil Gorsuch said, ‘We are writing judgments for an era.’ BBC news.
The case was heard in a special session a day after the arguments scheduled by the court. It was based primarily on Trump’s claim that he deserves immunity from any criminal charges while serving as president. According to Trump, this immunity will protect him from the charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. His trial will be stayed until the impunity issue is resolved. The matter is expected to be settled in June.
However, the division of judges is expected to result in a split decision. Their split may also lead to more complex decisions, which may delay the retrial process. Their questions also reveal that both the conservative majority and the liberal minority want to make decisions with an eye on history. Does a full impunity mean that future presidents can use the military to kill their opponents? Or if there is no impunity, the president will face trial or go to jail after the end of his term as a victim of political revenge? They also bring up President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal and John F. Kennedy’s Operation Mongoose (intelligence operation against Fidel Castro) in the 1960s. Conservatives believe former US presidents should have some immunity. Still, the justices were wary of Trump’s lawyer’s argument in the case, Dean John Saue, who said a former president is “almost immune” from the judicial process. Sauer was cross-examined by 9 judges on this defense. Elena Kagan, one of the three liberal justices, asked what would happen if the president ordered the military to stage a coup. Sauer seemed hesitant to answer. He said ‘It will depend on the situation. Justice Kagan replied, ‘That doesn’t sound very good, does it?’ Later, another liberal judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, also expressed concern that former presidents may not obey the law if they are excluded from the entire criminal justice process. “I’m trying to figure out how to discourage turning the Oval Office[the office of the president]into a seat of crime,” he said. Conservative justices also pressed Sauer on what constitutes an ‘official act or governmental act’ performed as part of the president’s job and personal duties.
Samuel Alito, one of the court’s most conservative justices, wants to know—my question is, is the broad scope of impunity that you’re talking about necessary? Justice Amy Coney Barrett was appointed by Trump. He seemed somewhat skeptical as to whether the President was entitled to full impunity. After their review, it appears that the legal battle will almost certainly be delayed and appealed, meaning the legal battle could drag on for months, if not years.
