Clash of the Titans: Supreme Court Debates Presidential Immunity in Trump's Election Case

In a heated Supreme Court hearing, former President Donald Trump's attorney and Associate Justice Elena Kagan engaged in a lively debate over the hypothetical possibility of a president ordering a coup and facing prosecution. Trump's attorney argued for immunity based on official acts, while Kagan questioned the boundaries of such immunity.

The Supreme Court's hearing on the constitutionality of presidential immunity in the election interference case against former President Donald Trump erupted in a contentious exchange between Trump's attorney, John Sauer, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. At the heart of the debate was a hypothetical scenario presented by Kagan, in which a former president orders the military to stage a coup after leaving office.

Sauer argued that if the act was deemed official, the president would require impeachment and conviction prior to prosecution. However, Kagan pushed the boundaries of immunity, questioning how a coup d'état, even if ordered by a former commander-in-chief, could be considered an official act.

"He's no longer president," Kagan stated. "He wasn't impeached. He couldn't be impeached. But he ordered the military to stage a coup. And you're saying that's an official act?"

Sauer responded that the immunity would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act or not, reiterating the need for impeachment in such a scenario. Kagan pressed further, asking, "What does that mean? Depend on the circumstances? He was the president. He is the commander-in-chief. He talks to his generals all the time. And he told the generals, 'I don't feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup.' Is that immune [from prosecution]?"

Sauer maintained that the hypothetical scenario would depend on whether the act was considered official. Kagan pointed out that Sauer's response suggested immunity under his test, despite the severity of the hypothetical coup attempt.

Kagan further argued that the framers of the Constitution intentionally omitted an immunity clause for the president, recognizing the potential for abuse of power. She emphasized that the president is not above the law, unlike a monarch.

Sauer countered that the framers had put in place a series of structural checks to prevent such extreme scenarios, stating that the framers' concern was not about the president escaping prosecution but about the risk of preventing the president from carrying out their duties.

The exchange highlighted the complex legal and constitutional issues surrounding presidential immunity. The Supreme Court's resolution is expected by mid-June and will determine whether Trump can be prosecuted for "official acts" in Special Counsel Jack Smith's election interference case.

Separately, Trump is also facing a trial in New York City on charges of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.