Trump at the Supreme Court
By Adam Liptak
Trump at the Supreme Court
The country’s top court will have at least three opportunities to weigh in on former President Donald J. Trump’s legal troubles.
Here is an overview of the cases →
The Issue: Is Trump ineligible to be president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
The Law: Section 3 bars officials who took an oath to support the Constitution from holding office if they then engage in insurrection.
Where Things Stand: The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was an insurrection, that Trump engaged in it and that Section 3 applies to the presidency. That means, the court said, that he cannot be on the state’s Republican primary ballot. But the ruling is on hold. The U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear Trump’s appeal in February.
The Issue: Is a former president absolutely immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office?
The Law: The Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents are immune from civil suits seeking money for official actions within the “outer perimeter” of their responsibilities, and the Justice Department has said that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. But it’s an open question whether a former president is completely shielded from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.
Where Things Stand: Judge Tanya S. Chutkan rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election. The Supreme Court declined a request from Jack Smith, the special counsel, to hear an immediate appeal of that ruling. A federal appeals court will hear arguments on Jan. 9, and the case will return to the Supreme Court if the losing side appeals, which is all but certain.
The Issue: Can prosecutors charge defendants in cases arising from the Jan. 6 attack under a federal law that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding?
The Law: A provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a law aimed primarily at white-collar crime, figures in two of the charges against Trump in the election-interference case. It applies to anyone who corruptly destroys evidence or “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding.”
Where Things Stand: A divided three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Joseph Fischer, saying that the law is not limited to destroying evidence and “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.” The Supreme Court has agreed to hear his appeal and is expected to decide on it by June. A decision in Fischer’s favor could undermine part of the case against Trump.
Read more about Trump’s legal troubles:
