In a recent Supreme Court hearing regarding a Department of Justice election interference case against former President Donald Trump, his attorney, Jack Sauer, argued for “absolute immunity,” suggesting that a president could order the assassination of a political rival or stage a military coup without facing prosecution.
During the hearing, Supreme Court Justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, challenged Sauer’s argument with hypothetical scenarios.
Sotomayor questioned whether ordering an assassination could be considered an official act protected by immunity, to which Sauer responded affirmatively.
This line of reasoning prompted Sotomayor to express disbelief, emphasizing the gravity of potential crimes committed by a president.
Justice Kagan posed another hypothetical about selling nuclear secrets, to which Sauer suggested that such actions would likely not be immune from prosecution, although impeachment would precede any legal action.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern over the implications of Trump’s attorney’s argument, noting that removing the possibility of criminal liability could encourage future presidents to engage in unlawful activities while in office.
The dialogue in the hearing highlighted deep divisions over the extent of presidential immunity and its potential consequences for presidential accountability and the rule of law.
