Justice Alito Questions Attorney On Presidential 'Special Protection' Versus 'Immunity'

7 months ago

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. United States on Thursday.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00You dispute the proposition that a former president has some form of immunity.

00:07But as I understand your argument, you do recognize that a former president has a form

00:13of special protection, namely that statutes that are applicable to everybody must be interpreted

00:22differently under some circumstances when they are applied to a former president.

00:26Isn't that true?

00:27It is true because, Justice Alito, of the general principle that courts construe statutes

00:33to avoid serious constitutional questions.

00:36And that has been the longstanding practice of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department

00:40of Justice.

00:41All right.

00:42So this is more, I think, than just a quarrel about terminology, whether what the former

00:50president gets is some form of immunity or some form of special protection, because it

00:56involves this difference, which I'm sure you're very well aware of.

00:59If it's just a form of special protection, in other words, statutes will be interpreted

01:04differently as applied to a former president, then that is something that has to be litigated

01:11at trial.

01:12The former president can make a motion to dismiss and may cite OLC opinions.

01:18And the district court may say, well, that's fine.

01:21I'm not bound by OLC.

01:23And I interpret it differently.

01:25So let's go to trial.

01:27And then there has to be a trial.

01:29And that may involve great expense.

01:33And it may take up a lot of time.

01:35And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities

01:41that the former president would want to engage in.

01:44And then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the

01:50jury returns a verdict.

01:52And then it has to be taken up on appeal.

01:55So the protection is greatly diluted if you take the form, if it takes the form that you

02:01have proposed.

02:02And why is that better?

02:04It's better because it's more balanced.

02:06The blanket immunity that petitioner is arguing for just means that criminal prosecution is

02:14off the table unless he says that impeachment and conviction have occurred.

02:20Those are political remedies that are extremely difficult to achieve in a case where the misconduct

02:26occurs close to the end of a president's term.

02:29Congress is unlikely to crank up the machinery to do it.

02:32And if the impeachment trial has to occur after the president has left office, there's

02:36an open question about whether that can happen at all.

02:40You're arguing against most far-reaching aspects of Mr. Sauer's argument, right?

02:48That is correct.

02:49Let me turn, then, to why.

Justice Alito Questions Attorney On Presidential 'Special Protection' Versus 'Immunity'

Category

Transcript

Recommended