Supreme Court Weighs Presidential Immunity in Trump Jan. 6 Criminal Case: Chief Justice Roberts Seeks ‘Rule of Ages’

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. United States, which centers around whether former President Donald Trump can face criminal charges for his actions leading up to January 6th. While most justices provided hints as to their decision during the over two-and-a-half hour session, four – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – expressed views in favour of propositions that may bar charges against Trump’s actions regarding his presidential duties. On the other hand, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to support a ruling permitting most or all prosecutions relating to January 6th to continue without raising obstacles that would pose problems for Trump’s trial in the future. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed little regarding his stance during arguments but seems set on finding a “rule of ages” applicable to criminal charges against presidents, which could be applied beyond this case. However, complications arise as it is unclear where exactly the line between actions that are immune from prosecution and those not would fall due to specific idiosyncrasies relating to motive in certain cases; also, a decision close to an election date may have practical immunity effects for Trump if he wins re-election. Previous decisions by chief justices such as Earl Warren’s Brown v Board of Education or William Rehnquist’s Miranda ruling show that the Chief Justice can set out clear standards while speaking on behalf of a united Court and nation. As this decision will ultimately define Roberts’ legacy, it is unclear whether he could find an approach to allow Trump’s trial before election day without raising issues regarding obstructions for future presidents.