By Jack Phillips | Epoch Times
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to release its final opinions on today, the final day of the court’s current term.
The most significant—and controversial—decision involves whether former President Donald Trump should be declared immune from prosecution in relation to election-related criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
“At that time, we will announce all remaining opinions ready during this term of the court,” Chief Justice John Roberts said from the bench on June 28, according to courthouse reporters.
Other remaining cases involve Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas meant to restrict the ability of social media companies to curb content that the platforms deem objectionable, a North Dakota convenience store’s challenge to a government regulation on debit card “swipe fees,” and more.
Regarding the Trump case, the former president’s attorneys had argued that former U.S. presidents should have a broad degree of immunity from criminal charges for certain activities they undertook while in office. The Trump appeal has effectively brought the special counsel’s case, which was brought in Washington, to a standstill, and it likely won’t make it to trial before the November election.
During oral arguments in April, some Supreme Court justices appeared to back the Trump attorneys’ arguments that he should have at least some protection. However, many questioned his attorneys’ claims that he should enjoy “absolute immunity.”
Lower courts have rejected the former president’s immunity arguments. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the Trump case, said earlier this year that the presidency “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” and a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals later rejected the former president’s claims and argued that it would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers clause.
Chief Justice Roberts said at a hearing in April that he had concerns about the appeals court ruling that rejected the former president’s immunity assertions, saying the court didn’t provide a detailed analysis of whether it believed the indictment targeted his official or private acts.
The chief justice argued that the lower court has simply said that “a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted,” and asked, “Why shouldn’t we either send it back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that’s not the law?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the case “has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country.”
Some of the other justices appeared more likely to side with the special counsel’s team and suggested that the Trump trial should move forward.
“The Framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “And, you know, not so surprising, they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?”
Attorneys for the prosecution told the high court that there are private actions alleged in the indictment that should allow for the case to make it to trial immediately.
“The president has no functions with respect to the certification of the winner of the presidential election,” Michael Dreeben, a lawyer on Mr. Smith’s team, told the justices at the time.
“So it’s difficult for me to understand how there could be a serious constitutional question about saying ‘You can’t use fraud to defeat that function, you can’t obstruct it through deception, you can’t deprive millions of voters of their right to have their vote counted for the candidate who they chose,’” Mr. Dreeben said.
The 2024–2025 Supreme Court term is slated to start in October. After the July 1 session, the court will be in recess until then, although justices can still issue rulings via the emergency docket.
Reuters contributed to this report.