Supreme Court narrows the lens as it takes up Trump's immunity claim

WASHINGTON — As former President Donald Trump tells it, his efforts in 2020 to overturn the election results were a core part of his presidential duties, meaning he should have immunity from any criminal prosecution.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting the former president, sees it very differently, arguing that there is no precedent for such a broad claim of immunity for actions taken while in office.

It is that key question that the Supreme Court will drill down into when it hears oral arguments in April on Trump's bid to toss out his election interference indictment.

The final decision could set the rules of the road not just for Trump but also for the actions of any future president.

The court in a brief order on Wednesday indicated how it will approach the case by laying out precisely the legal question it will consider: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

Lawyers are now poring over those 29 words, which — some speculate — were likely the product of intense negotiations among the justices. That may have accounted for why the court took almost two weeks to decide how to act on Trump's request that it hear his appeal — a timeframe that prompted criticism that the court was playing into the former president's desire to drag out the process.

With much focus on the timing of the Supreme Court's intervention and whether its involvement means that a trial might not be able to take place before the election, there has been less attention on what exactly the justices will decide.

The language does not track exactly how either Trump or Smith framed the issue.

"My