The Supreme Court on Monday will release its ruling in a case involving whether former President Trump is immune from prosecution for his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The case is the most high-profile of the court’s session, and it is being released on the final day before the Supreme Court justices go on summer recess. The case relates to Trump’s efforts to defend himself against a federal indictment for election interference.
“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said during oral arguments for the case in April.
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment charged Trump with four felonies relating to his efforts to reverse President Biden’s 2020 victory. Trump’s legal team argues that the actions he took were all part of his official duties as president, and that presidents cannot be prosecuted for such acts.
CAN JOE BIDEN BE REPLACED AS THE SITTING PRESIDENT?
Two lower courts sided staunchly against Trump. If the Supreme Court does the same, it could allow Trump’s election interference trial to occur before the November election.
Most scholars expect the court to adopt some middle ground between Trump’s claims of immunity and Smith’s indictment.
MAJORITY OF VOTERS THINK BIDEN IS COGNITIVELY UNFIT TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT: POLL
In nearly three hours of debate in April, the high court wrestled with this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”
Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while it appeared the majority was not sold on the idea of absolute immunity, they could determine that Trump, and any future former presidents, should be granted a qualified version of it.
TRUMP CALLED JOCELYN NUNGARAY’S MOTHER 10 MINUTES BEFORE DEBATE AGAINST BIDEN
“I think the court recognizes that it would be a dangerous precedent if future presidents can prosecute their political rivals,” Mark Brnovich, former attorney general of Arizona, told Fox News Digital.
“They will set a limiting principle because, under the prosecutor’s theory, future prosecutors would have a lot of power to persecute their political rivals,” Brnovich said.
John Yoo, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley, said Trump’s argument “had much more success than many court watchers expected.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“Only the three liberal justices seemed to reject the idea of immunity outright. The six conservative justices recognized the need to prevent future presidents from criminalizing policy and constitutional differences with their predecessors,” Yoo said.
