Key Takeaways from Trump’s immunity arguments at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court spent over three hours on Thursday hearing oral arguments in the historic case involving former president Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from prosecution.

On the final day of arguments for this term, the nine justices questioned lawyers for Mr Trump and the Justice Department’s special counsel and toyed with whether or not presidents should be awarded broad, some, or no immunity from criminal prosecution.

The former president is asking the court to award broad-sweeping immunity from criminal charges, claiming that without protections the president would effectively be unable to do their job without fear of politically-motivated retribution.

Meanwhile, attorneys with the special counsel argue that no person, even the president, is above the law.

The case stems from Mr Trump’s motion to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference indictment against him, charging him over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and stay in the White House.

Here are the key takeaways from Thursday’s arguments:

A majority of the justices – notably the conservative men – seemed inclined to award some immunity to Mr Trump and future presidents when it comes to criminal prosecution.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh all raised concerns about political opponents using the loophole to go after the president. Michael Dreeben, the attorney arguing on behalf of the special counsel, reiterated to justices it was not the problem in Mr Trump’s case.

John Sauer, Mr Trump’s attorney, seemed to convince these judges that the prospect of charges, trial and imprisonment could “distort the president’s decision-making, precisely when bold