Immunity claims

Key takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s absolute immunity claims in April

From CNN's John Fritze, Tierney Sneed and Marshall Cohen

During oral arguments in April, the Supreme Court appeared ready to reject former President Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity and the broad protections he has sought to shut down his federal election subversion case, but also reluctant to give special counsel Jack Smith carte blanche to pursue those charges.

After nearly three hours of oral arguments, several of the justices seemed willing to embrace a result that could jeopardize the ability to hold a trial before the November election.

Much of the hearing focused on whether there should be a distinction between official acts by Trump pursuant to his presidential duties and his private conduct.

Here are key takeaways from today’s oral arguments:

Supreme Court seems unlikely to fully resolve the immunity question: As the justices wrestled with the nuances of the case and a series of complicated hypotheticals, it seemed increasingly unlikely the court would offer a clear answer on whether Trump may be prosecuted for his effort to overturn the 2020 election. The upshot is that the Supreme Court appeared likely to leave much of that work to lower courts, proceedings that could take months and further delay a trial that had originally been set for March 4. That outcome would play into Trump’s strategy of delay and jeopardize a trial before the election.

Trump attorney concedes some acts may be “private” and not official: In a notable series of concessions, Trump’s attorney D. John Sauer acknowledged that some of the alleged conduct supporting the criminal charges against the former president were private. The admission shows how much ground Sauer gave up during the hearing, after Trump had made more sweeping claims in his legal briefs earlier this year, asserting that the entire prosecution should be thrown out because the actions in question were part of his official duties as president.