It's a key question in a case that could not only set constitutional precedent but also have major consequences in the 2024's claim of "absolute immunity" from prosecution in his federal election inference case will be put to the test in arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Nothing in constitutional text, history, precedent, or policy considerations supports the absolute immunity that petitioner seeks," Smith wrote in his brief to the high court.The case will chart new legal ground, experts told ABC News as they broke down the history and precedent of "presidential immunity."
But there is textual evidence from the Constitution's framers -- including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton -- about how they viewed the issue. In the federal election interference case specifically, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump's motion to dismiss the case on the basis of immunity. Chutkan blisteringly wrote that whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the position "does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."Trump's claim of immunity as it pertains to his federal election case.
Specifically, he was skeptical of Trump's defense that the Constitution's impeachment clause or double jeopardy shields him from liability. Huq highlighted a statement from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who said during Trump's second impeachment trial that "impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice."
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: FoxNews - 🏆 9. / 87 Read more »
Source: WashTimes - 🏆 235. / 63 Read more »
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »
Source: dcexaminer - 🏆 6. / 94 Read more »
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »