The fate of former presidential legal immunity is currently in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A 2009 law review by Justice Brett Kavanaugh provides insight into his potential stance in Trump's immunity case, suggesting that he believes prosecution of a president could be deferred until after their term ends.
The issue traces back to arguments over whether a sitting or former president can delay facing legal actions until they are out of office, a topic Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a moderate conservative appointed by Trump, addressed in a 15-year-old law review article.
According to Business Insider, Kavanaugh suggested that delaying prosecution would allow a president to govern without the distraction of litigation.
Justice Kavanaugh's stance is crucial in the current context. He penned that the role of holding the president accountable should be postponed, which does not essentially place the president above the law but merely delays proceedings until the term concludes. He stated:
The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.
The Supreme Court's decision could result in significant relief for Trump from numerous legal battles or could send the matter back for more detailed consideration in the lower courts.
A key aspect of Kavanaugh’s argument is that the Constitution safeguards the president through impeachment, suggesting that this is the appropriate channel for addressing significant misconduct in office.
Jonathan Entin, a retired constitutional law professor, elaborated on Kavanaugh's position, indicating that he likely disagrees with the argument that a president must be impeached and removed before facing prosecution.
Jonathan Entin argued: "From the oral arguments, it seems that there's an attempt to delineate which presidential actions could be prosecutable post-office and which could be immune."
Moreover, the indication is that the Court might not settle the presidential immunity question definitively, potentially only achieving a partially conclusive decision. The Court could distinguish between acts taken within the official capacity of the presidency, which might be immune, from personal actions, which are not.
Jonathan Entin predicts a divided decision, suggesting that the more conservative justices might require the case to revisit lower courts to resolve details about separating indictable actions from those covered by immunity.
The Supreme Court's decision is anticipated keenly, as it will significantly influence how future presidents are treated regarding legal accountability. It questions the balances of powers and checks in U.S. governance, reflecting on the judiciary's role in potentially redefining the boundaries of executive power.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision on this matter could redefine the scope of presidential immunity, impacting not only Donald Trump but also the future of the presidential office in the United States. The balance between allowing a president to govern effectively and ensuring they remain accountable under the law might well hinge on the outcome of this critical judgment.
