The Supreme Court should approach the Donald Trump immunity case with caution and restraint, refraining from making a sweeping decision that could have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences. Instead, the court should take a narrow approach, treating the case as a straightforward matter of electioneering and avoiding a definitive ruling on presidential immunity.
After listening to two and a half hours of oral argument, it is clear that the court should avoid making a complicated and time-consuming ruling that could disrupt the balance of power among the branches of government. The more the court decides in this case, the greater the risk of unintended consequences that could impact the functioning of the presidency and the relationship between the branches.
The court should keep in mind that the case at hand is a simple one, involving a president who used official means to try to overturn an election and stay in office. This is quintessentially personal and political electioneering, and no one, not even Trump’s lawyers, claims that such conduct is entitled to immunity.
Supreme Court (Credits: NPR)
Therefore, the court should decide the case narrowly, holding that there is no absolute criminal immunity for presidents and that a president who uses official means to engage in electioneering is not entitled to immunity. The court should leave it to the district court to determine at trial whether Trump’s conduct constituted electioneering and whether he is guilty of the crimes charged.
This approach is consistent with the history of presidential immunity, which has always been limited and subject to the rule of law. Until Trump, no president or citizen believed that a president was above the criminal law, and presidents have always cooperated with criminal investigations into their conduct in office.
In the Iran-Contra affair, for example, President Ronald Reagan’s administration was subjected to intense criminal scrutiny, and the president’s own conduct was investigated and prosecuted. Similarly, in the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon’s claims of absolute immunity were rejected by the Supreme Court, and he was forced to resign.
US Supreme Court (Credits: AP News)
Therefore, the court should avoid making a broad ruling on presidential immunity and instead focus on the narrow issue at hand: whether Trump’s conduct constituted electioneering and whether he is guilty of the crimes charged. By taking a narrow approach, the court can avoid disrupting the balance of power among the branches and ensure that the presidency remains subject to the rule of law.
In addition, the court should reject Trump’s claims of immunity based on the idea that a president’s official acts are always entitled to immunity. This argument is based on a flawed understanding of the presidency and the Constitution, and it would have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences if accepted.
As the court recognized in the Watergate case, a president’s official acts are not always entitled to immunity, and the president is not above the law. Instead, the court should focus on the specific circumstances of each case and determine whether the president’s conduct was official or personal, and whether it was entitled to immunity.
U.S. Supreme Court (Credits: Nebraska Examiner)
In this case, it is clear that Trump’s conduct was personal and political, and it was not entitled to immunity. The court should therefore reject his claims of immunity and allow the district court to proceed with the trial.
The Supreme Court should approach the Trump immunity case with caution and restraint, avoiding a broad ruling on presidential immunity and instead focusing on the narrow issue at hand. By taking a narrow approach, the court can ensure that the presidency remains subject to the rule of law and that the balance of power among the branches is maintained.
