Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to dismiss arguments presented by former President Trump’s attorneys on Thursday. The attorneys argued that the justices should differentiate between personal and official acts in order to determine whether a president can be prosecuted. Justice Jackson cautioned that such claims could potentially transform the Oval Office into a breeding ground for criminal behavior.
The court listened to oral arguments on Thursday for Trump’s immunity case. In this case, the former president asserts that he cannot be prosecuted for alleged crimes committed during his time in office. He argues that legal liability restricts the president’s capacity to take action.
Jackson pointed out that presidents have the privilege of consulting with top-notch legal experts to assess the legality of their actions.
“Why should we find ourselves in a situation where we believe that the president can carry out official actions without any accountability for adhering to the law?” she questioned.
In her remarks, she expressed her apprehension over Trump’s claims that a president could feel restrained in office if they were to face potential prosecution once they leave.
According to Jackson, it would pose a serious issue if someone with immense power and authority, such as the President of the United States, could enter office with the knowledge that they would face no consequences for committing crimes.
“Why would anyone want to transform the Oval Office, the symbol of power and leadership, into a hub of criminal activity? I find it perplexing and am searching for answers.”
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the arguments in the case, which stems from the federal special counsel’s charges against Trump. The charges accuse him of multiple felonies related to his alleged involvement in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump’s defense team maintains his innocence and argues that his actions were protected by the office of the president.
During the hearing on Thursday, the liberal justices expressed skepticism towards the argument put forth by Trump’s attorneys. Justice Sonia Sotomayor specifically questioned the potential legal consequences if the president were to be involved in a homicide while in office.
“That could potentially be considered an official act,” commented John Sauer, a lawyer representing Trump, in reference to the suggestion of assassinating a political rival.
According to Sotomayor, the attorneys representing Trump are requesting the court’s permission for the president to exploit his position for personal benefit, all while avoiding any legal consequences.
The argument put forth by Trump has been previously dismissed by two lower courts. This case is significant as it is the first time the Supreme Court is considering an appeal related to one of Trump’s four criminal indictments. The outcome of their decision will determine whether those who are not on trial will ever have the opportunity to present their case before a jury.
