During the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts scrutinized an attorney representing the Department of Justice regarding a debate on presidential immunity.
The case in question revolved around former President Donald Trump and the Court was reviewing an appeal against a ruling made by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on February 6.
This ruling had dismissed Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in relation to an indictment brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith.
The indictment stemmed from Trump’s efforts to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election.
Roberts directed his attention towards the lower court’s opinion and posed a question to attorney Michael Dreeben, seeking clarification on whether the lower court and the DOJ were asserting that Trump’s immunity was nullified due to his indictment.
“They said that there is no reason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith and there is no reason to worry because a grand jury will have returned the indictment,” Roberts said.
“Now, you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases, I‘m not suggesting here, so if it’s tautological, if those are the only protections the court gave that is no longer your position, you are not defending that position, why shouldn‘t we send it back to the court of appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that’s not the law?”
“Well, I am defending the court of appeals’ judgment and I do think there are layered safeguards the court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about unduly chilling presidential conduct,” Dreeben responded. “That concerns us. We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecutions in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence. A politically driven prosecution would violate the Constitution… It’s is not something within the arsenal of prosecutors to do.”
…Roberts just slammed the lower court “a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws.”…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 25, 2024
Did history’s other tyrannical dictators have this much trouble silencing their opponents?