Could President Joe Biden assassinate political rivals if he thinks they’re corrupt and face zero consequences?
If you’re asking former President Donald Trump’s legal team, the answer appears to be, “Yes.”
The Supreme Court seemed highly skeptical of Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution during Thursday’s sometimes bizarre questions and answers between the justices and Trump’s lawyers.
Chief Justice John Roberts was among at least five members of the court Thursday who appeared likely to reject the claim of absolute immunity that would stop special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump on charges he conspired to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden.
“Based on SCOTUS questions, right and left, I see no way the court would grant a president absolute immunity. The examples - election fraud, bribery, coup, assassination - forces Trump lawyer to admit these are private acts, not protected, though he insists “official acts” are,” Fox News’ Howard Kurtz posted to X, formerly Twitter.
Plenty of others weighed in as the proceedings rolled on.
“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” conservative lawyer and Trump critic George Conway said.
And then there were more direct observations from the justices questioning Trump’s lawyers.
“Donald Trump’s lawyer is effectively arguing before the Supreme Court that there is no legal recourse if Joe Biden orders the military to kill his client,” Matthew Gertz, senior fellow at the left-leaning Media Matters for America posted.
What’s less clear if how quickly the justices will find a resolution to the question.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision could be as important as the outcome. Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the November election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.
Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn’t function as the commander in chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.
Lower courts have rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, D.C.
The election interference conspiracy case brought by Smith in Washington is just one of four criminal cases confronting Trump.
Smith’s team says the men who wrote Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law and that, in any event, the acts Trump is charged with — including participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden — aren’t in any way part of a president’s official duties.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.
Matt Arco may be reached at marco@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter at @MatthewArco.
