Justices set to punt on Trump immunity case

Protesters outside Supreme Court — The "framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution" (Image credit: Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

What happened

The Supreme Court's conservative majority, after nearly three hours of oral arguments Thursday, appeared unlikely to give former President Donald Trump the "kind of get-out-of-jail free card" he is seeking in special counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election subversion case, Politico said. But a majority of justices seemed ready to enshrine some level of presidential immunity and send the case back to lower courts for time-consuming parsing of "official" versus personal presidential actions.

Who said what

This case has "huge implications" for the "future of the presidency" and the country, said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "We are writing a rule for the ages," Justice Neil Gorsuch said. The "framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution," said Justice Elena Kagan. "Not so surprising — they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law." Telling "the most powerful person in the world" there is "no potential penalty for committing crimes" could turn "the Oval Office into the seat of criminality," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The commentary

The conservative justices seem poised to give Trump "what he most desires in the case: further delays," Ronald Brownstein said at The Atlantic. People who went into Thursday's hearing "wishing to preserve a preelection trial against Trump" emerged "hoping that the court doesn't eviscerate the possibility of criminal consequences for any president who breaks the law."

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

What next?

The court's ruling is expected by the end of June.

Explore More

Peter has worked as a news and culture writer and editor at The Week since the site's launch in 2008. He covers politics, world affairs, religion and cultural currents. His journalism career began as a copy editor at a financial newswire and has included editorial positions at The New York Times Magazine, Facts on File, and Oregon State University.