Legal Breakdown of Trump’s Immunity Case at Supreme Court

It’s a big day for President Trump as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices heard oral arguments in Trump’s immunity case. Will the Supreme Court grant or deny Trump presidential immunity for official acts taken while he was President?

Here’s how we got to where we are today: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 federal election case against President Trump accuses the former President of “obstruction of an official proceeding,” i.e., trying to overturn the 2020 election results. President Trump asserted that he had constitutional authority to investigate the validity of the 2020 election results.

Smith then argued that no President should have presidential immunity for official actions taken while in office: “A former President is subject to federal criminal prosecution for personal and official acts that violate valid criminal laws.” Such an argument means a President could be liable for any decision that goes wrong – a drone strike, for example. Trump refuted this outrageous claim and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the case.

The ACLJ filed an amicus brief in this massive case. We don’t believe that any President receives total blanket presidential immunity for any action as President. We have criminal laws on the books that would hold a President accountable if he, for example, took a bribe for appointing someone as an ambassador.

However, we believe that a President should have immunity for official decisions made while President. If a President is afraid to make tough decisions for fear of potential jail time, then the office of the President will be greatly weakened. As President Trump told reporters today, “If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.” He’s exactly right.

The oral arguments were ongoing while we were on air today, and from what we  could tell, the Justices appeared to agree that no President should have blanket immunity, but they also didn’t believe in removing immunity completely. While it’s impossible to guess the outcome of a case, based on oral arguments, it appears that the justices may agree with our arguments.

The central issue is determining the definition of an “official” act. I alluded earlier to the example of a President taking a bribe. Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, argued that differentiating between a criminal act and an “official” act with a bribe would depend on the circumstances involved. It is certainly possible that an accused bribe could fall under “private” acts or “official” acts depending on the facts and in what capacity the President received the money. For example, major campaign contributors are often named as ambassadors, and that isn’t considered a bribe. The President gets to appoint who he wants as ambassador.

So as you can see, the Justices are going to have to provide clear parameters for different kinds of acts.

Sauer later concluded that President Trump's investigation of election results was an “official” act, and he should not be prosecuted for it. Likewise, I’ve argued in the past that a President investigating election results falls under their constitutional duties as President.

The Justices should make their ruling by mid-June. In all likelihood, they’ll ask the lower courts to intervene and hold fact-finding hearings to determine if President Trump’s actions were, in fact, “official” acts in need of immunity protection. To do so, the lower courts will also have to determine the definition of an “official” act.

I hope that the office of the Presidency is not weakened because of outrageous far-Left interpretations of the Constitution. I don’t want future Presidents to be afraid to do their job, regardless of which party they represent.

The ACLJ is involved in another U.S. Supreme Court case, where we filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case to defeat the coordinated assault on pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs). There is a nationwide, coordinated assault by the abortion industry and its political allies to shut down the lifesaving work of pro-life centers.

We are also fighting abortion radicals in California who are targeting pro-life centers by limiting how ultrasounds are performed in the state. PRCs and the pro-life community know just how powerful and lifesaving ultrasounds can be, and we will tenaciously guard their ability to provide ultrasounds to women seeking them. We are fighting on the PRCs behalf to share their message of hope with expectant mothers.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of Trump’s presidential immunity case at the Supreme Court. Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard joined the show to discuss the ongoing antisemitic protests taking place on college campuses.

Watch the full broadcast below: