OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Former President Donald Trump shared a positive note following last week’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing, in which justices heard arguments from his legal team about “presidential immunity” stemming from charges brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Trump reacted to the “monumental” hearing Thursday, saying he thinks it was “made clear” that a president “has to have immunity.”
The real estate mogul made his remarks to reporters after sitting for hours in a Manhattan courtroom where he is defending himself against 34 felony counts of allegedly falsifying business records to hide hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal.
Trump had requested to attend arguments in Washington, D.C., but New York Judge Juan Merchan denied the request after mandating that the former president be present in his Manhattan courtroom for each day of his criminal trial.
“I was forced to be here, and I’m glad I was because it was a very interesting day in a certain way,” Trump told reporters.
“The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity,” Trump said. “And I think it was made clear, I hope it is very clear, that a president has to have immunity.”
Trump repeated his past claim that without immunity, presidents would be reduced to just a “ceremonial” position.
“That’s not what the founders had in mind,” he said. “We want presidents that can get quite amazing—quite amazing.” He added that the Supreme Court justices “were on their game.”
“So let’s see how that turns out,” he said. “But again, I say presidential immunity is very powerful. Presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won’t have a country anymore.”
The justices are expected to issue their ruling in June. Some legal analysts have speculated that the justices could grant Trump partial immunity for acts committed while in office while also remanding the case to a lower court for reconsideration under their guidelines.
Justice Neil Gorsuch argued during the hearing that former presidents ought to enjoy some immunity from subsequent attacks if they leave office.
“It didn’t matter what the president’s motives were; that’s something courts shouldn’t get engaged in … I am concerned about future uses of criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives,” the Supreme Court justice said on April 25.
Gorsuch, Trump’s first of three Supreme Court appointees, hinted during the hearing that if justices decide not to hold that presidents should have some degree of immunity, then future presidents may be able to pardon themselves before leaving office. He also said he didn’t want to decide whether or not a president could exercise that power, as the Epoch Times noted.
“We’ve never answered whether a president can do that; happily, it’s never been presented to us,” Gorsuch said of whether a president can issue a pardon to himself before leaving office.
“What would happen if presidents were under fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office?” Gorsuch also asked, citing a hypothetical situation in which former President Barack Obama could face prosecution for ordering a drone strike that killed civilians.
He and several other conservative-leaning justices said that they were less concerned about President Trump’s charges but more concerned about the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity in general.
“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” he stated.
“Whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents,” Justice Samuel Alito added.
Chief Justice John Roberts was among the justices who hinted that presidents shouldn’t be exempt from prosecution in any capacity, reports said.
