Justice Alito Schools Jack Smith’s Prosecutor On Presidential Immunity

In a historic Supreme Court hearing on Thursday, Justice Samuel Alito sharply interrogated Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team during the high-profile federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump. The justices signaled a nuanced stance on the issue of presidential immunity, suggesting that while they might reject Trump’s broad claims, they could also consider delaying the trial until after the upcoming November election.

The court appeared hesitant to immediately proceed with the special counsel’s charges, potentially opting instead to remand the complex legal matters back to the lower courts for further evaluation.

The cautious approach underlines the judiciary’s intent to balance legal precedents with the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the case.

Justice Alito focused on historical comparisons to scrutinize the arguments presented by Michael Dreeben, attorney for the Special Counsel. Alito referenced contentious presidential decisions from the past, notably President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, challenging Dreeben to justify why such actions were not previously treated as federal crimes.

“Mr. Sauer and others have identified events in the past where presidents have engaged in conduct that might have been charged as a federal crime,” Alito noted. “So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II? Couldn’t that have been charged under 18 U.S.C. 241, conspiracy against civil rights?” he asked.

WATCH:

Justice Alito presses Special Counsel attorney Michael Dreeben on why past presidential acts, like FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans, haven’t been charged as federal crimes pic.twitter.com/LXK3YV1lqR

— RSBN 🇺🇸 (@RSBNetwork) April 25, 2024

The dialogue took a deeper dive when Alito questioned the implications of wartime decisions on presidential authority. He pointed out that such decisions, often made under significant national security pressures, could be seen through a different legal lens. The discussion also veered into the theoretical realm of self-pardons, a topic that has sparked considerable legal and constitutional debate. Alito questioned whether a president could pardon himself, a scenario that remains unaddressed by the Department of Justice and the courts.

WATCH:

“If a president has the authority to pardon himself before leaving office, and the DC Circuit is right that there is no immunity from prosecution, won’t the predictable result be that presidents, on the last couple of days of office, are going to pardon themselves from anything that they might have been conceivably charged with committing?” Alito asked.

Dreeben responded by distancing the current Justice Department’s stance from hypothetical self-pardon authority.

“It sort of presupposes a regime that we have never had,” Dreeben argued, suggesting that the political fallout from such an action would serve as a significant deterrent.

The court’s 6-3 conservative majority, bolstered by three justices appointed by Trump, has faced significant pressure in light of the case. On February 6, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump was not immune from prosecution. Last month, the court provided Trump with an election-year advantage by ruling that Colorado lacked the authority to remove him from the ballot.

As the justices weigh the intricate legal questions presented, the case continues to draw national attention, with implications that could redefine the scope of presidential powers and accountability. The possibility of delaying the trial suggests that the court is treading carefully, aware of the political and legal repercussions that a hasty decision could provoke.