Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. In a split screen for the ages, the Supreme Court heard Donald Trump’s bid for immunity in one of his criminal cases while he sat on trial in another. The immediate upshot of the high-court hearing in Washington is that the Manhattan trial may be the only criminal one Trump faces before the November election. And depending on how that election goes, it may be the only criminal trial he ever faces.
If Trump has his way, staging coups and ordering murders could be immune from prosecution. Democratic-appointed justices pressed his lawyer, John Sauer, on those hypotheticals at Thursday’s hearing. Incredibly, Sauer said they might qualify as “official acts” that are off-limits for prosecutors. Meanwhile, GOP appointees like Justice Samuel Alito sounded more concerned with presidents facing criminal accountability than with the dangers of presidents committing crimes with impunity.
But even if Trump loses his extreme absolute immunity bid, the Supreme Court might rule that ex-presidents enjoy some level of legal protection. Whatever precise form that immunity takes remains to be seen in the court’s decision. The ruling might not theoretically save Trump from a trial in the federal election interference case, because at least some of the acts described in the indictment couldn’t possibly be deemed “official.” But the delay might help Trump anyway. Further litigation over applying the justices’ new immunity test to Trump’s case could add even more delay to the already-delayed case.
The Washington, D.C., prosecution has been on hold pending the immunity ruling. So the justices’ decision to take up the appeal in the first place, then to not hear it until the last argument day of the term, and now embarking on crafting a historic ruling all point against any trial happening by the election. Of course, if Trump wins that election, his federal cases will be as good as gone, and any state cases (which he can’t pardon) may at least be stalled while he’s in office.
In the trial that’s happening, Manhattan prosecutors gave their opening statement and called their first witness, David Pecker. The former National Enquirer publisher testified that he agreed with then-candidate Trump and fixer Michael Cohen to look out for negative stories impacting the 2016 campaign. Pecker is an important first witness, setting the stage for the Stormy Daniels hush money payoff at the center of the case. Trump is charged with falsifying business records over allegedly covering up the reimbursement of Cohen’s payment to Daniels just ahead of the election. He has pleaded not guilty and denied having sex with the pornographic actress.








