When Donald Trump began to claim presidential immunity from criminal prosecution related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, many legal analysts ABC News spoke with considered it a weak argument.
But last week, in nearly three hours of oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices seemed open to some limited protection for former presidents from criminal liability for official acts they undertook while in the White House.
It was a shocking turn of events, according to some veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
MORE: Trump has good day arguing immunity but that doesn’t nix Jan. 6 prosecution: ANALYSIS
“That’s exactly the part that I think most of the American public is going to find fairly incredulous,” said David Schultz, a professor at the University of Minnesota and national expert in constitutional law. “The idea of saying that the president of the United States is above the law compared to the rest of us.”
While the justices seemed poised to reject Trump’s more sweeping claim of “absolute” immunity, how they attempt to devise what official acts are and are not exempt from criminal prosecution will set a new standard for presidential power.
“That is a whole new territory for the court that we’ve never seen before,” Schultz said, “and will make major new law in the United States.”
The justices grappled with the unprecedented nature of the case during Thursday’s hearing. Justice Neil Gorsuch said what they decide will be a “rule for the ages.”
While Trump is the first ever president to be criminally charged, the arguments were largely devoid of references to the former president and the specific allegations against him.
The immunity question came before the Supreme Court in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, alleging election interference; Trump is facing four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. He pleaded not guilty and denies all wrongdoing.
Puzzlingly, “in some sense, Trump did not seem to be important in this case,” Schultz said.
Instead, the debate largely focused on hypothetical scenarios as justices expressed concern about the consequences of too much or too little protection for future presidents.
“The question quickly became, ‘What’s the scope of official conduct?’ And that’s where, I think, the disagreements among the justices were revealing,” said Gerhardt.
At one point, Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” said Gerhardt.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also asked Sauer if a president could order the military or someone else to kill a political rival, which Sauer also said could be considered an official act depending on the circumstances.
“If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked.
On the other side, several conservative justices appeared primarily concerned about future bad faith prosecutions…
Read More: Legal experts react to Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s immunity claim