When it comes to Trump’s Supreme Court bid for immunity, the test case is Richard Nixon.

The WASHINGTON − His test case is Richard Nixon, and it will be presented on Thursday during the historic arguments in Donald Trump’s longshot attempt to obtain presidential immunity from the Supreme Court.

Using a presidential pardon, Richard Nixon was able to dodge criminal charges related to the Watergate scandal. This allowed him to establish a precedent for whether or not presidents can be sued.

Having informed Congress about enormous cost overruns in the Defense Department, an Air Force weapons analyst had filed a lawsuit against Nixon, saying that he had been sacked as a form of reprisal for his statements.

The Supreme Court, which was deeply divided at the time, ruled in 1982 that President Richard Nixon could not be held accountable for official activities. The reasoning for this decision was that civil lawsuits would be too distracting for a president, and they would cause him to be overly cautious when carrying out his duties.

However, on April 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether or not the same line of reasoning should be applied to Trump’s attempt to have the federal criminal charges against him that he is facing for attempting to steal the 2020 election dismissed.

The idea that Trump has absolute immunity is likely to be rejected by the justices, according to the opinions of many experts. In the event that they do, however, the length of time it takes them to issue an opinion and whether or not a majority of them believe that presidents have some immunity will determine whether or not Trump can be tried prior to the election in November.

“The first and most important pivotal question is whether the court will rule in a way that allows the case to then continue immediately,” said Harry Litman, a former United States Attorney and deputy Assistant Attorney General. “This is the most important question.”

Trump trial already delayed

The decision of the Supreme Court to consider the appeal of the presumed nominee of the Republican Party has already reduced the likelihood that a trial that was scheduled to begin in March will be able to be concluded before the election.

As a result of the delay, critics are asserting that the court may have already granted Trump immunity in the event that there is no trial and Trump wins the election. This would put him in a position to completely eliminate the case that the Justice Department has brought against him.
A law professor at New York University named Melissa Murray made the following statement at a recent event that was hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University: “I believe that there have been some absolutely indefensible choices on the part of the United States Supreme Court that have effectively immunized Donald Trump.”

However, Stanley Brand, a former chief counsel for the House of Representatives who has represented Trump advisors in court battles, stated that there is no presumption in criminal law that trials involving candidates need to fit inside an election timeframe.
This is a total and utter evil and a misunderstanding of what the criminal justice system is all about, according to Brand. “The notion that the criminal justice system is designed to give the electorate a reason to vote or not to vote is a complete and utter abomination.” It is never that the criminal justice system is concerned with what the general population believes. It is about the rights of the defendant and whether or not the government has succeeded in meeting its obligation.

New territory for Supreme Court

Due to the fact that Trump is the first president, either current or former, to be charged with a criminal offense, the Supreme Court is currently deliberating on a new matter.

President Trump is accused of attempting to reverse the results of the 2020 election by circulating false information about election fraud and attempting to convince state officials, his vice president, and Congress to block the certification of the genuine results. The case is currently being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. Despite the fact that he is facing criminal accusations in state courts in New York and Georgia, as well as in federal court in Florida, this case is distinct from those counts.

Trump is holding out hope that the outcome of the Supreme Court case Nixon v. Fitzgerald from 1982 will save him. According to that decision, the Supreme Court stated that presidents are exempt from civil damages for official acts, even those that occur on the “outer perimeter of a president’s official responsibilities,” both while they are in office and after they leave office.

`President Trump has become citizen Trump’

The same protection should be extended to criminal proceedings, according to Trump’s wishes. In the event that this does not occur, his legal representatives say that the possibility of future prosecution and incarceration “would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial presidential decisions, thereby removing the power, authority, and decisiveness of the presidency.”

The major brief that his attorneys submitted to the court as a preview of their oral argument stated that “a denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future president with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and I would condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents.”

Both the federal district judge who is presiding over Trump’s trial and the Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia did not believe it.

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled in a resounding rejection of Trump’s argument. The panel was unanimous in its decision.

Despite the fact that Trump’s acts were carried out in his official capacity, rather than in his personal capacity as a candidate, the court stated that the public’s interest in the enforcement of criminal laws is important. A situation that involves a presidential election is one in which this is especially true, according to what they wrote.

Jack Smith, a special prosecutor, contends that the fact that President Gerald Ford granted a pardon to Richard Nixon demonstrates that presidents have never anticipated being exempt from criminal prosecution.

`A hard case to game out’

Alex Reinert, an expert in criminal law who teaches at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, stated that the Supreme Court most likely agreed to consider Trump’s appeal because of the significance of the question of presidential immunity.

Reinert, who worked as a clerk for the late Justice Stephen Breyer, stated that the justices will attempt to investigate the level of immunity that would strike a balance between the rule of law and the requirement for presidential protection against unfounded and harassing prosecutions.

According to him, “I believe it is a difficult case to game out.” “However, I do believe that it is going to come down to the outside borders of the regulations that the court believes are going to be manageable…and supportable. For it to be considered a principled line, it must be a line that is judicially controllable and that the court believes will not have an excessive number of adverse downstream implications. That being said, I do believe that there is a great deal of wiggle room for the court to determine what the most appropriate rule is.
Other people have the expectation that the court will make a ruling that is limited to Trump’s case and will not take the time to investigate other possible outcomes.

“Donald Trump has articulated an outrageous, unprecedented, and ahistorical assertion of absolute immunity,” said Norm Eisen, who served as the ethics czar in the Clinton White House under the Obama administration. It is not necessary for the Supreme Court to involve itself in other matters simply because Trump has made it simpler for them to do so. This matter ought to be decided by them.

Tough to go to trial before election

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents are only eligible for criminal immunity in certain situations, then Trump wants the protection to be extended to the greatest number of people feasible. He also wants the court to order that any “fact-based” standard be applied through further proceedings before his trial can begin.

A special lawyer for the Department of Justice named Jack Smith has informed the court that any conditions that it imposes on immunity should not cause the trial to be delayed.

Reinert predicts that a trial might begin before the election. However, it is possible that the trial will not be completed if the justices agree with Smith.

“I believe that it would be very difficult to get to a trial before November,” he is quoted as saying. “However, I do believe that it is feasible.”

Not a fast process

Although John Yoo, a former official in the Justice Department who served under George W. Bush, believes that Trump is still able to defend himself against some of the charges, he anticipates that Trump’s argument of broad immunity would fail.

During a preview of the case that was held by the Federalist Society, Yoo stated, “I believe the court will deny immunity but then let him proceed to make his substantive attacks on the indictment.”