The Supreme Court's conservative justices indicated support on Thursday for granting US presidents some level of protection from criminal charges for certain actions taken in office, as they addressed Donald Trump's assertion of immunity from prosecution in his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
During the roughly 2.5-hour arguments, most justices appeared hesitant to endorse Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" for official acts, particularly when confronted with hypothetical scenarios involving serious offenses such as selling nuclear secrets or ordering a coup. However, the conservative justices, who hold a majority on the court, expressed concern about the potential lack of immunity for presidents, especially for less severe actions.
Trump, aiming to return to the White House this year, appealed after lower courts rejected his request to be shielded from four election-related criminal charges, arguing that he took the actions in question while serving as president. The eventual ruling may narrow the allegations against Trump but could also lead to further delays in his trial if lower courts are tasked with applying the new interpretation of immunity.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about incumbent presidents being vulnerable to vindictive prosecution by the succeeding administration, highlighting the potential destabilization of democracy. Chief Justice John Roberts also expressed worries about abusive prosecutions in the absence of immunity, emphasizing the ease with which a grand jury can bring indictments.
Trump, facing multiple criminal cases, including ongoing trials related to hush money payments and the election-related charges, has pleaded not guilty. His lawyer argued for presidential immunity, contending that it is essential for the functioning of the presidency. However, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged this argument, citing President Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal as evidence to the contrary.
