Shouldn't the Supreme Court rule days after oral arguments like they did in Bush v. Gore given the gravity and the implications this could have on the 2024 election?
CNN's Devan Cole also covers the court, and he notes that the 2000 election hung in the balance, so justices had to act at breakneck speed to settle it.
Justices are under no obligation to move quickly, and their behavior leading up to this moment "suggests they don't think this is a case they need to decide with extraordinary speed," Cole said.
This court does occasionally move quickly, Cole adds, pointing to the Colorado ballot dispute over whether Trump violated the "insurrectionist clause" included in the 14th Amendment. Justices issued their opinion that Trump could not be barred from that state's ballot less than a month after hearing arguments.
Can the Supreme Court give Trump partial immunity (enough to let him get away from his indictments, but not enough to let any president to get away with a personal crime like murder)? Is there a distinction between official presidential actions and personal actions while under the umbrella of being president?
Here's Biskupic's answer:
Yes, they could figure out a way to restrict the kind of immunity. Jack Smith acknowledged at the end of his brief that there might be special circumstances – for example, foreign affairs, where you wouldn't want the president subject to criminal prosecution for something that he might have done that involved a foreign power that someone could claim was criminal, but was certainly in the national interest.
But what the government is arguing here is that no matter what the limits are, it would not cover someone who was trying to engage in election subversion.
What is the legal basis of Trump's immunity claim?
Trump argues that his efforts to overturn the election were in the "outer perimeter" of official acts he undertook as president. The term comes from a case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, involving a lawsuit against former President Richard Nixon. In 1982, after he left office, the Supreme Court decided Nixon could not be sued for acts related to the "outer perimeter" of his official duties.
Trump's lawyers want to extend that immunity from civil lawsuits related to the "outer perimeter" to immunity from criminal prosecution.
There are other cases, like United States v. Nixon, in which the Supreme Court found presidents do not have blanket immunity. In that case, the court forced Nixon while he was still in office to comply with a criminal subpoena for the infamous White House tapes. It ended his presidency.
A key line from the US v. Nixon opinion undercuts Trump's argument: "any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution."
Trump's lawyers also argued Trump already faced a form of prosecution when he was impeached by the House and tried in the Senate. It's a flawed argument since senators who voted to acquit him said they were doing so because he was leaving office and could still face criminal prosecution.
Which Founding Fathers drafting the Constitution authored immunity? Isn't it true that the original intent was only to protect a sitting president from states' claims and suits that would tie up a presidency, but never to wholly shield a president? Accordingly, why did Nixon require a pardon if the Constitution granted absolute immunity?
Trump's lawyers cite George Washington's farewell warning about factionalism as an argument that he would have supported immunity. But there is nothing in the Constitution about granting the president immunity from prosecution.
The founders were breaking free from a monarchy where the king was set above everyone else. Their rhetoric does not support the idea of absolute immunity for any one person. Quite the opposite.
Nixon's pardon was granted by his successor, President Gerald Ford, to preempt criminal prosecution. It came after the Supreme Court ruled Nixon was not completely immune from the justice system and had to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations.
In his remarks announcing the pardon, Ford and his lawyers clearly believed prosecution of the former president was possible and likely. Ford wanted to put the Watergate nightmare behind everyone.
If Trump's immunity claim is upheld by the Supreme Court, what can anybody or any government body do to challenge the decision?
The Supreme Court is the final word on legal matters, so there is no higher authority to overrule its decision.
In any event, voters will get their chance to send a message about Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, in November. If lawmakers don't like it, they can try to pass legislation to change the law. If you don't like your lawmakers, vote.
If it is found he has immunity, will all federal charges will be dismissed?
That very much depends on the specifics of the decision. A decision that grants Trump and all presidents full and permanent, blanket immunity seems unlikely.
Trump faces two separate sets of federal charges. If the Supreme Court's decision is something short of absolute immunity, two federal trial court judges will need to figure out how to apply the decision to their specific cases.
This case is focused on Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He also faces charges related to mishandling of classified material after he left office. Would an immunity decision in the first case affect the second? Perhaps.
There are also two separate sets of state charges – in New York and in Georgia. The New York case, related to Trump's alleged involvement in covering up a hush money scheme, wouldn't necessarily be affected by a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. The Georgia case, like the federal charges in Washington, DC, is focused on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.