--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- Noel King: Welcome to Today Explained. I'm Noel King.
--:-- Ian Millhiser: And I'm Ian Millhiser, Vox's Supreme Court reporter.
--:-- Noel King: Ian, you've been covering the Supreme Court for years, and you're here to break down the big case that's coming up this week. Donald Trump is arguing that he's immune from prosecution for anything that falls within his official duties as president.
--:-- Ian Millhiser: That's right, Noel. The question is whether former presidents are immune from prosecution for their official acts. And Trump's lawyers are arguing that he should be immune from prosecution for anything that he did as president.
--:-- Noel King: But that's a pretty broad interpretation of immunity. Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not be prosecuted unless they were first impeached and convicted?
--:-- Ian Millhiser: That's exactly what Trump's lawyers are arguing. They're saying that the president has absolute immunity from prosecution for anything that he does as president, and that's a pretty extreme position.
--:-- Noel King: So, what's the argument that Trump is actually making?
--:-- Ian Millhiser: Well, every government official has some degree of immunity from civil lawsuits. It's called qualified immunity. But judges and prosecutors are prosecuted all the time if they take a bribe or if they do something that violates the criminal law. And Trump is essentially trying to take this pre-existing immunity from civil lawsuits and expand it so that he's allowed to do crimes as well.
--:-- Noel King: That's a pretty audacious argument. And it's not just about Trump's case. This could have implications for all sorts of future cases involving government officials.
--:-- Ian Millhiser: That's right. If the Supreme Court were to accept Trump's argument, it could open up a Pandora's box of immunity for government officials. And that would be a really bad thing for the rule of law.
--:-- Noel King: So, who's arguing for Trump in this case?
--:-- Ian Millhiser: Trump has hired a lawyer named John Sauer, who's a former solicitor general of the state of Missouri and clerked for Justice Scalia.
--:-- Noel King: And who's arguing against granting Trump immunity?
--:-- Ian Millhiser: The prosecution is led by Jack Smith, the special prosecutor. He's a seasoned lawyer who's been appointed to handle this case because of the potential conflict of interest.
--:-- Noel King: So, let's walk through the timeline of this case. How did it get to the Supreme Court?
--:-- Ian Millhiser: Well, Trump is making some pretty ludicrous arguments here, but what he's trying to do is not necessarily win this case. He's trying to delay his criminal trial as long as possible.
--:-- Noel King: And how is he doing that?
--:-- Ian Millhiser: Trump has appealed the lower court's decision, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. But the Supreme Court is largely siding with Trump, and that's going to delay the trial even further.
--:-- Noel King: So, what's the timeline looking like?
--:-- Ian Millhiser: Well, the Supreme Court typically doesn't hand down its opinions until late June. And then we've got to run out the clock of those seven months that Judge Chutkan gave Trump to prepare his defense. And then we've got to do jury selection and the actual trial.
--:-- Noel King: And what are the chances of getting to a verdict before the election?
--:-- Ian Millhiser: I think the likelihood of that is very, very small. The Supreme Court has played along with Trump's effort to string this out as long as possible.
--:-- Noel King: So, how do you think the Supreme Court might rule here?
--:-- Ian Millhiser: I would be astonished if the court says that presidents are allowed to do crimes. But some liberal scholars have argued that maybe the justices will announce some limited immunity to prevent, say, Trump from getting into office and bringing a frivolous prosecution against President Biden.
--:-- [Theme music fades in]
--:-- Noel King: You're listening to Today Explained. I'm Noel King.
--:-- Jeffrey Green: Hi, I'm Jeffrey Green, an attorney with my own firm, Green Law Chartered, LLC.
--:-- Noel King: Jeffrey, you're representing one of the January 6th defendants, Joseph Fisher. Can you tell us a little bit about his case?
--:-- Jeffrey Green: Sure. Joseph Fisher is a former police officer from Pennsylvania who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. He's been charged with several crimes, including obstruction of justice.
--:-- Noel King: And what's the government's theory in this case?
--:-- Jeffrey Green: The government's theory is that the civil disturbances at the Capitol caused Congress to stop counting the electoral ballots, and that was a form of evidence tampering.
--:-- Noel King: And what's your argument in this case?
--:-- Jeffrey Green: We're arguing that the obstruction charge is too broad and could be used to prosecute people for peaceful protests. We think the statute means that you actually have to tamper with evidence, not just interrupt a proceeding.
--:-- Noel King: And what about the fact that some January 6th defendants have already been successfully prosecuted under this statute?
--:-- Jeffrey Green: Yes, well, we're arguing that those convictions would be overturned if we win this case.
--:-- Noel King: And what about Donald Trump? He's also been charged under this statute. Would your argument apply to him as well?
--:-- Jeffrey Green: Yes, it would apply to his case as well. But the prosecutor in that case, Jack Smith, has already said that he thinks our position wouldn't require him to drop the charge against Trump.
--:-- Noel King: So, what do you think about the fact that if you get your client off on this particular obstruction charge and others are released from the charge, that what you're doing is you're emboldening people to go and do this kind of nonsense yet again?
--:-- Jeffrey Green: I respectfully disagree with that. The government's position is that anyone who interrupts, obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding could be charged under this 20-year maximum penalty. And that's a pretty broad interpretation of the statute.
--:-- Noel King: And what about the implications for future cases involving government officials?
--:-- Jeffrey Green: Well, if the government's theory is accepted, it could be used to prosecute people for peaceful protests. And that would be a really bad thing for the rule of law.
--:-- [Theme music fades in]
--:-- Noel King: You're listening to Today Explained. I'm Noel King.
--:-- [Closing music plays]
--:-- Noel King: Support for this show comes from Macy's. Fall is right around the corner, and that means layering season is too. Macy's Fall Fashion Guide can help you get a pulse on all the latest trends and must-haves. Try a romantic look with a sheer top from INC. or mix it up with some fun textures like a faux fur bomber jacket from Karl Lagerfeld Paris. No matter your vibe, you can explore the Macy's Fall Fashion Guide and find the perfect look for you. Shop in-store or online at macy's.com.
