Trump v. United States (2024)

Last updated
Trump v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 25, 2024
Full case nameDonald J. Trump v. United States
Docket no. 23-939
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Trump, No. 23-cr-257 (D.D.C., Dec. 1., 2023) (immunity memorandum opinion)

United States v. Trump, No. 23-3190 (D.C. Cir., Dec. 8., 2023) (gag order)
United States v. Trump, No. 23-624 (2023) (certiorari before judgment)

Contents

United States v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir., Feb 6, 2024) (immunity)
Questions presented
Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson

Trump v. United States is a pending U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court will determine whether, and to what extent, presidential immunity from criminal prosecution exists. The case extends from an ongoing federal trial to determine whether Donald Trump, president at the time, and others engaged in election interference during the 2020 election, including events during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court held that the president is immune from prosecution in civil cases in regards to official acts. The Court clarified in Clinton v. Jones (1997) that the president is liable for civil damages for actions committed prior to assuming the presidency. The Supreme Court cases United States v. Nixon (1974) and Trump v. Vance (2020) limit the president's privilege within the judicial process; in Trump v. Vance, chief justice John Roberts wrote that the president is not "categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding". [1]

Three separate civil lawsuits (later consolidated in Thompson v. Trump ) against Donald Trump filed by several Congresspersons and Capitol police officers sought damages for Trump's actions from the United States Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Trump asserted presidential immunity for that case. In February 2022, District Court for the District of Columbia judge Amit Mehta rejected former president Donald Trump's claims of immunity in reference to the January 6 Capitol attack, allowing the civil trials to proceed. [1] The D.C. Court of Appeals upheld Mehta's opinion in a unanimous decision in December 2023. However, the ruling also stated that Trump may argue the immunity question later in the civil trial. [2] Trump opted not to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. [3]

Background

By March 2022, the Department of Justice began an investigation into then-President Donald Trump's actions from the general election in November 2020 and during the United States Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. [4] Attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special council to oversee the investigation into Trump in both the January 6 events and the handling of classified documents after his presidency. [5] Under federal district judge Tanya S. Chutkan for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a grand jury indicted Trump on four charges released on August 1, 2023. [6]

Among other legal actions, lawyers for Trump requested the dismissal of those charges in October 2023 based on presidential immunity. Attorney John Lauro argued that Trump's claims of electoral irregularities and voter fraud were "efforts to ensure election integrity", a responsibility of the president. According to Lauro, Trump's attempts to validate his claims through the Department of Justice and the fake electors plot cannot be criminally prosecuted as "official duties" as president. [7] Federal prosecutors asserted that Trump's claims of presidential immunity were not supported by the Constitution or legal precedent. [8]

Lower court history

On December 1, 2023, judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump's claims of presidential immunity. [9] Trump appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 7, seeking to pause the case; [10] Prosecutor Smith sought to bypass the appeals court, requesting that the Supreme Court decide the issue of presidential immunity directly and urging the Court to rule swiftly. [11] [12] The Supreme Court opted not to hear the case in an order issued on December 22, 2023, returning the case to be heard to completion by the D.C. circuit. [13]

The appeals court ruled on February 6, 2024, that Trump did not have presidential immunity. The unanimous three-judge panel stated that the public interest in holding presidents liable "outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action", and that allowing for presidential immunity would be an "unbounded authority to commit crimes". [14]

United States Supreme Court

On February 12, 2024, Trump appealed to the United States Supreme Court to request a stay of the 2020 election interference trial while he sought an en banc hearing from the D.C. Circuit Court. [15] In response, Smith filed his own brief on February 14, 2024, urging the Supreme Court to deny Trump's request and citing the urgency of the pending 2024 presidential election. Smith also requested that if the Supreme Court took the case, to treat Trump's request as a petition for writ of certiorari , and put the case on an expedited schedule. [16]

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, later setting arguments for April 25. The court also maintained the stay of the trial until their decision was made. [17]

On April 22, 2024, Liz Cheney, vice-chair of the January 6 hearings committee, published an essay in The New York Times urging the Supreme Court of the United States to quickly decide on presidential immunity to allow the legal proceedings of former President Trump to overturn the 2020 election to proceed in a timely manner. [18]

Oral arguments

Oral arguments were held on April 25, 2024. [19] Trump's attorney D. John Sauer argued that if structured as an official act, the president could not be charged for selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, accepting a bribe, ordering the military to stage a coup to retain power, or ordering a political assassination. Sauer argued that owing to absolute immunity, the president must be successfully impeached and removed from Congress first. Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel, argued that there are appropriate safeguards to assure that a president could not be prosecuted for most acts done while in their official capacity. [20] Journalists observing the arguments reported that the court downplayed Trump's claim of having complete absolute immunity, with some line drawn between public acts performed as presidential duties and covered by immunity, and private acts that would not be. At the same time, the conservative justices appeared to believe it necessary to review whether the specific indictments against Trump fell into public or private actions, and that sending the case back to lower courts to make this determination would be an appropriate action. Should the court decide on this route, the main trial would likely be delayed past the 2024 election. [19]

Reactions

Trump's claims for "absolute immunity" have been rejected by most political commentators and two lower courts. In a unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the court stated that if Trump's theory of constitutional authority were accepted, it would "collapse our system of separated powers" and put a president above the law. [21]

Charlie Savage of the The New York Times wrote that Trump's immunity claim challenged "a hallmark of American-style democracy: its suspicion of concentrated power." Further stating that "rather than a presidency at least theoretically checked by law, the country would be ruled by presidents who could openly commit official crimes with impunity, so long as enough allied lawmakers remained sufficiently loyal to block any impeachment." [22]

Writing for Politico , former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori wrote that Trump's claims were "ridiculous," criticized the Supreme Court for not dismissing them immediately and thus potentially delaying Trump's criminal trials until after the 2024 United States presidential election, and criticized the court for "issuing transparently political rulings that are clearly aligned with the political priorities of the Republican Party." [23]

Following oral arguments on April 25, reactions to the Supreme Court seemingly entertaining some form of presidential immunity for Trump was overwhelmingly negative from a variety of journalists, commentators, political scientists, and constitutional scholars. Many referred to Trump's arguments as those of a "king"; heavily criticized conservative justices for seemingly expressing more concern for preventing hypothetical future prosecutions of presidents; accused court conservatives for appearing unconcerned and giving serious thought as to whether assassinations, bribes, and military coups were protected "official" acts; accused court conservatives of being pro-Trump and misinterpreting the Constitution; and accused the court of being on the cusp of losing all remaining legitimacy. [lower-alpha 1] Democratic Rep. Jaime Raskin responded to oral arguments by saying that "they should move the Supreme Court over to the RNC headquarters, because they’re acting like a bunch of partisan operatives." [37] In an interview with Meet the Press , Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell stated that he didn't believe presidents should be immune from prosecution for actions committed in office. [38]

Notes

    1. ↑ Attributed to multiple sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

    Related Research Articles

    In the law of the United States, a special master is an official appointed by a judge to ensure judicial orders are followed, or in the alternative, to hear evidence on behalf of the judge and make recommendations to the judge as to the disposition of a matter. The special master should not be confused with the traditional common law concept of a master, a judge of the High Court entrusted to deal with summary and administrative matters falling short of a full trial.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">John Eastman</span> American legal scholar (born 1960)

    John Charles Eastman is an American lawyer and academic who has been criminally indicted and recommended for disbarment for attempting to keep then-president Donald Trump in office and obstruct the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 United States presidential election. Eastman has lost eligibility to practice law in California state courts, pending his appeal of the state bar judge's ruling that recommended him for disbarment. Eastman is also a co-conspirator in the federal indictment brought against Trump over his attempts to subvert the 2020 election results and prevent the certification of Biden’s election.

    In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, and that the common law recognized this immunity. The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability."

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Tanya Chutkan</span> American judge (born 1962)

    Tanya Sue Chutkan is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a U.S. district judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump</span>

    From the 1970s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes. He has also been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault, with one accusation resulting in him being held civilly liable.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president</span>

    The following is a list of notable lawsuits involving former United States president Donald Trump. The list excludes cases that only name Trump as a legal formality in his capacity as president, such as habeas corpus requests.

    Dean John Sauer is an American lawyer who previously served as Solicitor General of Missouri and Deputy Attorney General for Special Litigation in the U.S. state of Missouri.

    Trial of Donald Trump may refer to these legal cases against Donald John Trump in his personal capacity, which have led or are expected to lead to a trial:

    After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed 62 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in 9 states and the District of Columbia.

    In direct response to Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar and the 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the purview of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the election processes of Pennsylvania. All of these have either been dismissed or dropped. The last two remaining cases were dismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021. On April 19, 2021, more than five months after the November 3, 2020 election, the Supreme Court declined to hear the outstanding case brought by former Republican congressional candidate Jim Bognet, dismissing it without comment.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack</span> List of people charged with crimes

    On January 6, 2021, supporters of then President Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol Building, disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 United States Presidential Election. By the end of the month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had opened more than 400 case files and issued more than 500 subpoenas and search warrants related to the riot. The FBI also created a website to solicit tips from the public specifically related to the riot and were especially assisted by the crowdsourced sleuthing group Sedition Hunters. By the end of 2021, 725 people had been charged with federal crimes. That number rose to 1,000 by the second anniversary of the attack, and to 1,200 by the third anniversary, at which point over 890 people had been found guilty of federal crimes. These federal cases are handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (D.C.). State cases, of which there are fewer, are handled in the D.C. Superior Court.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents</span>

    Plasmic Echo was the codename for a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump's handling of classified and national defense-related government documents beginning in 2022, looking for possible violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Smith special counsel investigation</span> Investigation into former U.S. president Donald Trump

    An ongoing special counsel investigation was opened by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on November 18, 2022, to continue two investigations initiated by the Justice Department (DOJ) regarding former U.S. President Donald Trump. Garland appointed Jack Smith, a longtime federal prosecutor, to lead the independent investigations. Smith was tasked with investigating Trump's role in the January 6 United States Capitol attack and Trump's mishandling of government records, including classified documents.

    <i>Trump v. United States</i> (2022) 2022 lawsuit filed by former U.S. president Donald Trump

    Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, was a lawsuit filed on August 22, 2022, by former U.S. president Donald Trump in the Southern District of Florida. He sought the appointment of a special master to review materials seized on August 8, 2022, during the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, a part of the investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York</span> 2024 NY State trial

    The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump is a current criminal trial against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States. Trump faces 34 felony charges of falsifying business records relating to payments made to pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about an earlier alleged affair between them. Trump is accused of falsifying these business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and commit tax fraud. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison if Trump is convicted on five or more counts. Trump is the first U.S. president to be indicted.

    In 2023, four criminal indictments were filed against Donald Trump, president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Two indictments are on state charges and two indictments are on federal charges. These indictments amount to a total of 88 felony charges. The New York trial began on April 15, 2024. The District of Columbia trial was put on hold in February 2024 while waiting for the Supreme Court to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution. The Georgia trial has not yet been scheduled, and the Florida trial is in flux awaiting a ruling from the judge.

    A sitting president of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from many lawsuits while in office; it is under legal dispute whether they also enjoy immunity from criminal liability or prosecution. Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)</span> Prosecution for obstruction of election proceedings

    United States of America v. Donald J. Trump is a pending federal criminal case against Donald Trump, the president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, regarding his alleged participation in attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election, including his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Georgia election racketeering prosecution</span> State RICO case against Trump, Giuliani and others

    The State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump, et al. is a pending criminal case against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, and 18 co-defendants. The prosecution alleges that Trump led a "criminal racketeering enterprise", in which he and all other defendants "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome" of the 2020 U.S. presidential election in Georgia. All defendants are charged with one count of violating Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, which has a penalty of five to twenty years in prison. The indictment comes in the context of Trump's broader effort to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election. As of February 2024, it is one of four ongoing criminal indictments against Trump.

    <i>Trump v. Anderson</i> United States Supreme Court case

    Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that states could not determine eligibility for federal office, including the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected former president Donald Trump's presidential eligibility on the basis of his actions during the January 6 Capitol attack, adhering to the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory. The case was known as Anderson v. Griswold in the Colorado state courts.

    References

    1. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (February 28, 2024). "Trump's Claim That He Can't Be Prosecuted Collides With Precedents". The New York Times . Retrieved February 29, 2024.
    2. ↑ Gregorian, Dareh; Barnes, Daniel (December 1, 2023). "Federal appeals court finds Trump not entitled to presidential immunity in Jan. 6 civil cases — for now". NBC News . Retrieved March 2, 2024.
    3. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (February 16, 2024). "Trump opts against Supreme Court appeal on civil immunity claim over Jan. 6 lawsuits". NBC News . Retrieved March 2, 2024.
    4. ↑ Feuer, Alan; Benner, Katie; Haberman, Maggie (March 30, 2022). "Justice Dept. Widens Jan. 6 Inquiry to Range of Pro-Trump Figures". The New York Times . Archived from the original on April 4, 2022. Retrieved August 1, 2023.
    5. ↑ Thrush, Glenn; Savage, Charlie; Haberman, Maggie; Feuer, Alan (November 18, 2022). "Garland Names Special Counsel for Trump Inquiries". The New York Times . Archived from the original on May 26, 2023. Retrieved August 1, 2023.
    6. ↑ Richards, Zoe (August 2, 2023). "Who is Tanya Chutkan, the judge assigned to Trump's election case?". NBC News. Archived from the original on August 6, 2023. Retrieved August 7, 2023.
    7. ↑ Feuer, Alan; Savage, Charlie (October 5, 2023). "Trump Seeks Dismissal of Federal Election Case, Claiming Immunity". The New York Times . Retrieved February 28, 2024.
    8. ↑ Feuer, Alan (October 19, 2023). "Federal Prosecutors Reject Trump's Immunity Claims in Election Case". The New York Times . Retrieved February 29, 2024.
    9. ↑ Feuer, Alan (December 1, 2023). "Federal Judge Rejects Trump's Immunity Claims in Election Case". The New York Times . Retrieved February 29, 2024.
    10. ↑ Feuer, Alan (December 7, 2023). "Trump Seeks Freeze of Election Case as He Appeals Immunity Ruling". The New York Times . Retrieved February 29, 2024.
    11. ↑ Liptak, Adam; Feuer, Alan (December 11, 2023). "Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Is Immune From Prosecution". The New York Times . Retrieved February 29, 2024.
    12. ↑ Feuer, Alan (December 10, 2023). "Prosecutors Ask Judge to Deny Trump's Request to Freeze Election Case". The New York Times . Retrieved February 29, 2024.
    13. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (December 22, 2023). "Supreme Court sidesteps decision on Trump presidential immunity claim in federal election interference case". NBC News . Retrieved December 22, 2023.
    14. ↑ Tucker, Eric; Richer, Alanna Durkin (February 6, 2024). "Trump is not immune from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case, US appeals court says". Associated Press . Retrieved March 2, 2024.
    15. ↑ Sherman, Mark (February 12, 2024). "Trump asks Supreme Court to put off his election interference trial, claiming immunity". Associated Press . Retrieved March 2, 2024.
    16. ↑ Dwyer, Devin; Mallin, Alexander; Faulders, Katherine (February 14, 2024). "Special counsel urges Supreme Court to deny Trump's request for delay in immunity case". ABC News . Retrieved March 2, 2024.
    17. ↑ Liptak, Adam (February 28, 2024). "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump's Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April". The New York Times . Retrieved February 28, 2024.
    18. ↑ Cheney, Liz (April 22, 2024). "Liz Cheney: The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump's Immunity Claim". The New York Times . Archived from the original on April 22, 2024. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
    19. 1 2 Hurley, Lawrence; Reilly, Ryan J. (April 25, 2024). "Supreme Court signals further delay in Trump election interference case as it weighs immunity claims". NBC News . Retrieved April 25, 2024.
    20. ↑ Kruzel, John; Chung, Andrew (April 25, 2024). "US Supreme Court justices in Trump case lean toward some level of immunity". Reuters . Retrieved April 25, 2024.
    21. ↑ Dwyer, Devin (April 24, 2024). "Supreme Court to take up Trump's claim of 'absolute immunity' from criminal prosecution". ABC News . Retrieved April 24, 2024.
    22. ↑ Savage, Charlie (April 24, 2024). "Trump's Immunity Claim Joins His Plans to Increase Executive Power". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved April 24, 2024.
    23. ↑ Khardori, Ankush (April 24, 2024). "How to Know If the Supreme Court Is in the Tank for Trump". Politico. Retrieved April 24, 2024.
    24. ↑ Liptak, Adam (April 26, 2024). "Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump's Immunity in Unexpected Direction". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved April 26, 2024. Instead, members of the court's conservative majority treated Mr. Trump's assertion that he could not face charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election as a weighty and difficult question. They did so, said Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, by averting their eyes from Mr. Trump's conduct ... The conservative justices did not seem concerned that Mr. Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, said his client was free during his presidency to commit lawless acts, subject to prosecution only after impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate.
    25. ↑ Wegman, Jesse (April 26, 2024). "Trump's Immunity Case Was Settled More Than 200 Years Ago". New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2024. The right-wing justices seemed thoroughly uninterested in the case before them, which involves a violent insurrection that was led by a sitting president who is seeking to return to office in a matter of months. Instead, they spent the morning and early afternoon appearing to be more worried that prosecuting Mr. Trump could risk future malicious prosecutions of former presidents by their political rivals.
    26. ↑ Bouie, Jamelle (April 26, 2024). "This Whole King Trump Thing Is Getting Awfully Literal". The New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2024. Donald Trump's claim that he has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy: that no man is above the law. More astonishing than the former president's claim to immunity, however, is the fact that the Supreme Court took the case in the first place ... In other words, however the Supreme Court rules, it has egregiously abused its power.
    27. ↑ Rana, Aziz (April 26, 2024). "The Constitution Won't Save Us From Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
    28. ↑ Serwer, Adam (April 26, 2024). "The Trumpification of the Supreme Court". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 26, 2024. The conservative justices have shown they are ready to sacrifice any law or principle to save the former president.
    29. ↑ Aftergut, Dennis (April 26, 2024). "SCOTUS majority abandons conservative principles to mount bizarre defense of Trump's immunity claim". Salon. Retrieved April 26, 2024. Yesterday's message from the rightwing justices of the Supreme Court, particularly the male justices, was shocking to any believer in true, conservative jurisprudence and the rule of law. Their questions at the oral argument in the Donald Trump immunity case signaled strongly that they really care more about enhancing presidential power than preserving democracy, and to that end, lean toward giving Trump the gift of even more delay.
    30. ↑ Glasser, Susan B. (April 26, 2024). "King Donald's Day at the Supreme Court". The New Yorker. Retrieved April 26, 2024. It says everything about this Supreme Court—a radical right-wing bench that Trump reshaped with his appointments—that several conservative Justices hardly seemed bothered by this absolutist vision of the Presidency. And yet, notably, I did not hear any of them specifically defend Trump's indefensible conduct or the tremendous overreach recommended by his lawyer; instead, they invoked fears of unwarranted prosecutions against other former Presidents—not this one, they insisted somewhat sanctimoniously, but unnamed others.
    31. ↑ Suk Gersen, Jeannie (April 26, 2024). "The Supreme Court Appears Poised to Protect the Presidency—and Donald Trump". The New Yorker. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
    32. ↑ Totenberg, Nina (April 26, 2024). "Trump's immunity arguments and the experiences of the justices who might support it". NPR. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
    33. ↑ The Times Editorial Board (April 25, 2024). "Editorial: Only dictators have immunity from criminal acts while in power". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
    34. ↑ Huppke, Rex (April 26, 2024). "Trump's Supreme Court immunity arguments make me wish Americans were immune to con artists". USA Today. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
    35. ↑ Zachary, Basu (April 26, 2024). "SCOTUS probes assassinations and coups in Trump immunity hearing". Axios. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
    36. ↑ Vladeck, Steve (April 26, 2024). "Opinion: In Trump's immunity case, John Roberts has quite a mess in front of him". CNN. Retrieved April 26, 2024. But the one thing that seems most clear coming out of Thursday's argument is that the answer — and the broader legacy of the Roberts court — will ultimately be up to him.
    37. ↑ Timotija, Filip (April 26, 2024). "Raskin: Supreme Court should be moved 'over to the RNC headquarters'". The Hill. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
    38. ↑ Marquez, Alexandra (April 26, 2024). "Mitch McConnell says presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution". NBC News. Retrieved April 26, 2024.
    This page is based on this Wikipedia article
    Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
    Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.