Quick Hit:

The Supreme Court appears to be leaning towards a partial victory for former President Donald Trump in his presidential immunity case, potentially sending it back to a lower court. This comes as the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) faces tough questioning over its stance on presidential immunity.

Key Details:

• Trump's attorney, Dean John Sauer, argued for constitutional immunity for presidents from prosecution for official acts conducted during their presidency.
• Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, suggested the possibility of sending the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
• The Supreme Court's decision could delay a trial on Trump's election interference case until after the upcoming election.

Diving Deeper:

The Supreme Court justices' line of questioning indicated a potential shift towards a more nuanced understanding of presidential immunity. The justices seemed to be considering a model of immunity that would protect presidents from politically motivated prosecutions, but not grant them absolute immunity from all criminal charges.

During the hearing, Roberts questioned DOJ counselor Michael Dreeben about the appeals court's ruling that Trump lacked immunity because he had been indicted. Roberts expressed concern about relying solely on the good faith of the prosecutor and the grand jury, suggesting that this might not be sufficient protection in some cases.

Dreeben defended the appeals court's judgment, arguing that there were other safeguards that could prevent undue chilling of presidential conduct. He also emphasized that the DOJ was not endorsing a regime that would expose former presidents to bad faith prosecutions.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested the possibility of establishing a test for presidential protection from prosecution, which would not amount to absolute immunity. This could potentially lead to further delays if lower courts were to rule on it.

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned why no other president has faced prosecutions before Trump, to which Dreeben responded that there were no crimes committed. Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan characterized Sauer's argument for presidential immunity in extreme cases as sounding "bad," a sentiment with which Trump's attorney agreed.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case could have far-reaching implications for the understanding and application of presidential immunity. It remains to be seen how the court will ultimately rule and what impact this will have on future presidencies.