Donald Trump may seek a judge’s declaration to conclude the election case against him, as suggested by a law professor. This scenario arises from a recent Supreme Court ruling that provides the president with significant immunity concerning his official actions, but not for personal conduct.
A hearing regarding the new indictment is on the horizon, intended to replace an earlier one, with Judge Tanya Chutkan presiding. The professor noted that Trump might choose to delay this hearing given the upcoming election or make a more assertive argument asserting that the conduct deemed ‘private’ by special counsel Jack Smith is, in fact, official conduct.
The new indictment focuses on Trump’s private actions, and Trump’s legal representation is gearing up for a substantial legal challenge against this characterization. There is contention around whether the courts will agree with Smith’s classification of the conduct as private, which would render it not immune to prosecution.
Trump faces four charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results surrounding the January 6 Capitol riot. He has pleaded not guilty, claiming the charges stem from a politically motivated witch hunt.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 established that presidents hold broad immunity for official actions, recognizing absolute immunity for core political activities while denying immunity for purely personal conduct. This ruling will play a crucial role in the current case against Trump.
The law professor remarked that Smith might have opted for a different strategy in light of the Supreme Court’s recent protections. A more complex approach could have involved contesting Trump’s immunity for actions tied to legislative authority, which the Court ruled doesn’t possess the same level of protection as constitutional actions.
Overall, the ongoing legal discussions will greatly influence whether Judge Chutkan and potentially higher courts classify the alleged actions as private or official, and determine the applicability of immunity, making the upcoming hearing an essential point in this evolving legal battle.