NIn a historic hearing that lasted more than two hours, the nine judges — six conservatives and three more progressive — questioned Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, and attorney Michael Dreeben to analyze the immunity request of Trump, presidential candidate for November.
The high court must decide whether Trump has absolute immunity for having been President of the country and, if so, nullify the trial against him pending in federal court, in Washington, for electoral interference and the attack on the Capitol.
The majority of judges were skeptical of Trump’s request, considering that only the actions of a President are protected by immunity and not those that are of a personal nature.
But there were also conservative judges critical of the prosecution’s handling of the case and suggested they could send the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where Washington is located, to determine whether Trump’s actions were public or private. .
The trial for the attack on the Capitol, which should have started on March 4, was suspended due to Trump’s request for immunity, who is interested in prolonging the litigation, since, if he returns to the White House, he could order the Department of Justice to dismiss the federal charges against you.
It is unclear when the Supreme Court will make its decision, but it usually announces them by June, before the summer recess.
Although not in the Constitution or laws, sitting US presidents have historically enjoyed immunity from lawsuits related to their duties, in order to avoid a violation of the separation of executive and judicial powers.
Questioned by conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump himself, the Republican candidate’s lawyer admitted that some of the actions Trump took after the 2020 elections were “private” in nature and were probably not protected by immunity.
Fellow conservative Samuel Alito pressured the prosecutor with the idea that leaving former presidents unprotected would “destabilize” democracy because it would open the door for new presidents to arrest their predecessors for revenge.
Progressive judges are more opposed to Trump’s absolute immunity.
Read Also: Arizona accuses 18 people of interfering in the 2020 presidential election
Download our free App.
Eighth consecutive year Consumer Choice for Online Press and elected product of the year 2024.
* Study by e Netsonda, Nov. and ten. 2023 product of the year – pt.com
Source: https://www.noticiasaominuto.com/mundo/2548472/eua-supremo-tribunal-dividido-arrasta-decisao-sobre-imunidade-de-trump
