As the impending trial on charges of obstructing the 2020 election looms for former President Donald Trump, his legal team appears to be considering a high-stakes maneuver to delay or potentially circumvent the proceedings: initiating a consequential battle for presidential immunity before the United States Supreme Court.
Traditionally, US presidents enjoy protection from a majority of lawsuits. However, in a precedent-setting twist, Trump’s previous attempt to invoke immunity in a civil case linked to the January 6, 2021, assault on the US Capitol was unsuccessful. Despite this setback, the appeal of that decision has lingered for over a year, serving as a potential blueprint for seeking a postponement of his upcoming criminal trial involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
While Trump’s legal team has yet to formally request immunity in the criminal case, it is anticipated that they might contend that he is entitled to broad immunity against prosecution for actions taken in the context of his official duties as President.
During a recent hearing, Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, pointed out that the Supreme Court has not yet rendered a verdict on the scope of executive immunity in a criminal context. Lauro’s argument regarding immunity did not sway US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who declined to accommodate Trump’s desired trial date of 2026. Nevertheless, Lauro indicated that if the legal team does pursue the immunity argument, they would likely petition the judge to pause the criminal trial until the matter is conclusively settled.
However, legal experts view this strategy as a long shot, as US appellate judges generally hesitate to entertain cases until a final judgment is reached. Additionally, there exists a precedent of public officials facing prosecution for actions undertaken during their time in office.
Brandon Fox, a former federal prosecutor with experience handling public corruption cases, remarked, “It’s unprecedented,” alluding to the unique nature of a former president’s prosecution for events occurring while in office.
Historically, the Supreme Court has weighed in on issues related to civil lawsuits and criminal investigations involving presidents and executive branch officials. Yet, no sitting or former president has faced federal indictment before.
Despite the Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting a sitting president, this stance is not legally binding on courts and predominantly concerns its impact on the president’s capacity to fulfill official duties.
Trump’s federal charges involve allegations of conspiring to criminally interfere with the 2020 election results. The accusations span the period between the November general election and the January 6 attack on the Capitol. This indictment is one of four entered against the former president this year.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
13 Responses
An interesting doctrine, but it isn’t in the Constitution (so the textualists won’t go for it), and the originalists will point out that it sounds awfully like the doctrine in English law that “the king can do no wrong” which wasn’t exactly in favor in the late 18th century. Even attempting to claim a presidential right to royal powers will be perceived as an admission of guilt.
His best defense is to argue that he sincerely believed the election was stolen based on exit polling (which leaned Republican whereas usually they lean Democrat), and the fact that the absentee ballots tended significantly differently than the in-person ballots (usually they are roughly the same). Even if mistaken, if he sincerely believed the election was being stolen his actions would be non-criminal.
45 would not be the first elected to do prison time for committing crimes while in office. Governors, cabinet members, state and federal legislators have all been convicted of federal crimes while in office. (A quick Google shows me 100+)
Amil Zola: but using the courts to try people for political crimes, so that as a political prisoner they would be unable to campaign for office is something that hasn’t happened since the Civil War (when the Federal government arrested enough pro-Confederate Maryland politicians to keep the state from joining the Confederacy). Americans have a high self image of their country as one based on freedom and democracy, and prosecuting the leader of the opposition for political crimes goes against the grain.
I wouldn’t put anything past the corrupt conservatives on the Supreme Court, or the unqualified Trump appointees
@CTLAWYER
You’re supposedly a lawyer- can you please explain to me how the conservative justices appointed by Former (and בעזרת השם future) President Trump are corrupt or unqualified?
They make their decisions based on the Constitution, not what they feel is right, not what they want they want the outcome to be and not with bias towards the person that nominated them.
As far as unqualified judges on the Supreme Court- would you agree that someone who never even served as a judge is qualified to serve on the highest court in the country?
Would you say that someone who had numerous decisions overturned is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court (where her mistakes can’t be corrected)?
Would you say that someone’s skin color and gender (even though she can’t define what a “woman” is) are what qualifies someone to serve on the highest bench?
I understand that you’re terrified of able bodied people having to take responsibility for themselves (and males having to use male locker rooms…) but to go ahead and slander judges with an impeccable reputation for not agreeing with you is simply wrong and dishonest.
Just today 45 was quoted as saying he would imprison his political foes if elected again.
“the king can do no wrong”
Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France lost their heads thinking that was the case. Literally.
‘the absentee ballots tended significantly differently than the in-person ballots (usually they are roughly the same)’
Usually one of the two parties isn’t ordering their supporters not to vote by mail.
“someone who never even served as a judge is qualified to serve on the highest court in the country”
Yes. Many people who have never been judges have served in the Supreme Court. Among them are all four Chief Justices appointed in the 19th century (Marshall, Taney, Chase, and Fuller), and four 20th century appointees who would become Chief Justice (Hughes, Stone, Warren, and Rehnquist). Elana Kagan had never been a judge; she had been Solicitor General. Lewis Powell had never been a judge; he was a corporate lawyer and School Board Chairman. I could give you a much longer list but you get the idea.
‘how the conservative justices appointed by Former (and בעזרת השם future) President Trump are corrupt or unqualified?’
The problem isn’t the Trump appointees. It is two other Justices whose ethical conflicts would have in the past resulted in resignation or impeachment. Abe Fortas was forced off the Court for far less. But Fortas was Jewish. Right Wing Christians don’t have to worry about ethics.
Modern
The “idiot of the day” award goes to you.
Congratulations
@modern
The Republican Party is far from perfect but they are not diametrically opposed to the Torah as the Democrats are.
With that being said- when @CTLAWYER and other leftist loony libs try bashing the Republicans, instead of defending the Republicans I point out the hypocrisy.
@CTLAWYER mentioned that the Conservative Judges weren’t qualified- I merely pointed out that some of the Liberal judges were less qualified. The Conservative judges had impeccable records as judges when they were nominated while Kagan had no career as a judge to take into account.
(I’m struggling to write this as I’m a Frum Yid who respects every single letter in the Torah but Kagan- despite her anti-Torah views- is an accomplished person, she just had no prior experience as a judge to determine her qualifications.)
The most recent justice to be nominated was nominated based on her gender and skin color which any sane person would agree should not be a qualification. Her less than stellar record before she was nominated should also show that she’s less qualified than the Conservative justices.
Your pointing out that there were Supreme Court Judges in the 1800s who had no prior experience as a judge does nothing to show that the current Liberal justices are more qualified than the Conservatives.
@modern
As far as the corruption is concerned- if you look into the lives of just about any public official you’ll find some sort of conflict of interest. What you’re referring to may or may not come to the level of corruption.
But…
Threatening another country that you’re going to withhold $1 Billion in tax payer funds unless they fire a prosecutor that’s investigating the company that you’re inexperienced son is working for is a textbook case of corruption.
I never saw @CTLAWYER or any of his leftist loony libs complain about that. I’m confident that they proudly voted for President Biden despite that and would gladly vote for him again if given the opportunity.