Supreme Court agrees to decide if Trump is immune from election interference prosecution

Read the Full Transcript

• Amna Nawaz:

  The Supreme Court says it will now hear arguments over whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

• Geoff Bennett:

  The justices have set oral arguments for the week of April 22. Mr. Trump's pending trial in a federal court in Washington will stay on hold until then.

  William Brangham has been following all of the Trump legal cases and joins us now.

  So, William, what did the justices say? And how might it affect the potential scheduling of Mr. Trump's January 6 case?

• William Brangham:

  Well, the justices, as you both just reported, said that they will take up this question, which has been sort of simmering in the background of the whole January 6 election interference case.

  And it is whether or not Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for any of his activities leading up to that election. This is a clear victory for Donald Trump and a clear blow to Jack Smith, the special counsel in this case.

  Donald Trump, as we have reported, had wanted to dismiss that case and/or delay it as long as possible. And the Supreme Court taking this up does exactly that. This decision by the court is something of a surprise, simply because the bipartisan rigor with which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump's immunity appeal — and that's what kicked this up to the Supreme Court — that seemed like such a strong ruling that many people thought that the Supreme Court would not take this up.

  So, to your question, Geoff, about timing, as you mentioned, hearings at the end of April. If Trump wins that appeal and the Supreme Court decides that he does have immunity, then the January 6 case goes away, as do many of other cases against the former president.

  If the court rules against him that he does not have immunity, then the January 6 case in Washington, D.C., could start likely by the end of summertime.

• Geoff Bennett:

  And, William, remind us, what is the specific immunity argument that Mr. Trump's attorneys are making?

• William Brangham:

  Donald Trump argued, and his lawyers, that all of his behavior leading up to the 2020 election, in the aftermath of that election, they were all part of his official duties — that's the official term there — and that that is part of what the president did, and thus he cannot be prosecuted for those acts.

  He argues, his lawyers argue, that this would cripple future presidents and make it impossible for them to make decisions about anything. Special counsel Jack Smith has rejected that argument, as has the appeals court and the judge overseeing the January 6 case, saying that, if a president gets complete immunity for anything that they do while they're president, that just opens the floodgates for any potential behavior.

  They argue that what the president did in all of the fake electors scheme and all of the attempts to subvert the fact that Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden, that those were clearly illegal, outside of the responsibilities of a president, and that, if you grant him immunity, it basically capsizes any sense of accountability, allowing future presidents just endless freedom to act with impunity.

  That's what the court's going to rule on.

• Geoff Bennett:

  William Brangham, our thanks to you for that reporting. We appreciate it.

• William Brangham:

  Thank you.