WATCH LIVE | Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump immunity case

Join The Washington Post as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments to determine whether former president Donald Trump is immune from being prosecuted on charges of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss to remain in power. The court’s decision to take up this case will allow it to shape the scope of presidential power and will also impact when the trial can begin. Trump is the first former president to face criminal charges.

Trump’s claim of immunity has been so far unsuccessful. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, rejected Trump’s lawyers’ requests to dismiss the indictment on presidential immunity grounds. An appeals court in February upheld that decision.

Special counsel Jack Smith has petitioned the court to reject Trump’s claim that he’s immune from prosecution, arguing presidents are not above the law and that the charges Trump faces do not fall within the realm of a president’s official duties.

Follow us:

[Handsoffthekids]

Save your brain cells from the stupid commentary and skip to 1 hr in for the actual arguments.

[czbwqep]

Trump even talked about dismissing cases against him. Which country these Justices live in?

[RenzieWilsonPrice]

I am well aware that our Supreme Court leans more right than left. I believe that in order for the justices to reach a fair presidential "absolute immunity" conclusion, they should more closely evaluate the balance of power of the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches of U. S. Government. If any one president is granted legal, absolute immunity, that opens up a tsunami of flood gates that we have never seen before, and it will surely imbalance the powers that presently govern the United States because the president could, and would, do whatever he pleases because he/she would have more power than the other 2 branches of government. Therefore, I believe that the president is NOT above the laws of the land. I am not a lawyer, but I am voicing my 2 cents as a concerned citizen. USA 🇺🇸 It does not take legal scholars to understand this issue. The argument of "absolute immunity" is most definitely a no-brainer, and it is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

[richstwart]

When the doesn’t apply to everyone equally, then there is no law

[mileskino]

great video no political commentary just straight to the court room thank you washington post

[benkata]

Hopefully the attorney has quit smoking.

[michaelrandall]

Why does Sotomayor always coach the government? It seems so unethical. Every Justice tees up arguments they agree with, but I don't recall any Justice ever blatantly coaching a side, and she does it in almost every case.

[Muksanim]

Nobody has immunity from criminal acts!! Whoever heard of such? Yes, even self-called "geniuses" can be stupid!

[steveh]

This was utter trash and the Leo Leonard 6 wants a new monarch

[czbwqep]

The lawyer said if his argument clashed with the Constitution it is valid

[willgetbettereventually]

Impeachment and conviction before a criminal trial? He made that up. How stupid.

[WilbertJohnson-nqzd]

Don't expect the high court to uphold the law when it comes to Mr Trump bottom line

[rudigerpodlaha]

D J T is immune! Against honesty, fairness, remorse, empathy, self-criticism and mental fitness.

[thebottomline]

I truly believe that no matter what the decision by the Supreme Court is on Trumps immunity case, we will see serious repercussions across the country. Either way there are going to be a lot of unhappy Americans and news medias. This is a no win situation for America.

[Keepitkind]

The more power the court gives the Executive Branch....the less to their own Judicial Branch. A SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THREE BRANCHES. A President with full immunity unbalances all that our founders intended.

[ericibola]

Trump placed those three Justices knowing they will protect him when the time comes.

[susancoddington]

Why did the most conservative justices not want to discuss the alleged crimes committed by the former president? They wanted to discuss the what if’s hypothetical crimes but did not want to listen to the answers that Dreeben gave regarding what the former president did. I thought a case brought before the Supreme Court was the case they would be arguing not a hypothetical what if case

[zarella]

We are NOT a nation of Kings, Monarchs or Dictators therefore no one is above the law, we are all created equal!

[jeffreyandrews]

The supreme court has ruled on immunity. Saucier v katz and pearson v Callahan. Hope alls well with you and yours

[timgriffin]

This was great to hear, but just a speed bump for this court case. Only Thomas and Alito will vote in tDump favor.
I am very interested in Barrett, she's, surprisingly, become the swing vote.