WASHINGTON − During historic arguments Thursday in Donald TrumpIn the Supreme Court’s long-running attempt to secure presidential immunity, its test case is that of Richard Nixon.
After Nixon avoided criminal charges for Watergate through a presidential pardon, he set the standard for whether presidents can face prosecution.
An Air Force weapons analyst had sued Nixon, claiming he was fired in retaliation for informing Congress of massive cost overruns within the Defense Department.
A very divided Supreme Court said in 1982 Nixon could not be held responsible for official actions, because civil suits would be too distracting for a president and would make him unnecessarily cautious in carrying out his responsibilities.
The Supreme Court will now hear oral arguments on April 25 on whether that same logic should apply to Trump’s attempt to drop the federal criminal charges he faces for trying to steal the 2020 election.
Many experts believe the judges will likely reject Trump’s claim of absolute immunity. But even if they do, how long will it take them to issue an opinion and whether a majority believes that presidents have a few Immunity will determine whether Trump can be tried before the November election.
“The first and foremost critical question is whether the court will rule in a way that will allow the case to proceed immediately,” said Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and assistant attorney general.
Trump trial already delayed
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the presumptive GOP nominee’s appeal has already diminished the chances that a trial that was supposed to begin in March could end before the election.
The delay has critics accusing the court of already granting Trump immunity if there is no trial and Trump wins the election, which would put him in a position to get rid of the cases against him by the Ministry of Justice.
“I think there have been absolutely indefensible choices by the United States Supreme Court that have effectively immunized Donald Trump,” Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University, said during ‘a press conference. recent event sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
But Stanley Brand, a former general counsel for the House of Representatives who has represented Trump aides in legal battles, said there is no expectation in criminal law that cases involving candidates must be filed in an electoral calendar.
“The idea that the criminal justice system is designed to give the electorate a reason to vote or not vote is an abomination and a complete distortion of the reason the criminal justice system exists,” said Brand. “The criminal justice system never depends on what the public thinks. It’s about the rights of the accused and whether the government has met its burden.”
Related Trump’s secret trial in New York begins and with it, the strangest campaign ever
New territory for the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court decides an unprecedented question because Trump is the first president – former or current – to be criminally…
