Supreme Court weighs Trump’s ‘presidential immunity’ claim. Here’s what that means

Whether or not Donald Trump, and future presidents, are immune from criminal prosecution for actions conducted while in the White House will soon be decided by the Supreme Court.

In what is setting up to be a landmark ruling from the nation’s highest court, the nine justices will determine if Mr Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results by making false claims of election fraud, allegedly trying to install fake electors and pressuring former vice president Mike Pence to decertify election results were part of his “official acts” as president, and if those are protected from criminal prosecution.

Mr Trump claims he should enjoy absolute immunity, citing previous court cases that have determined presidents have immunity from civil lawsuits brought against them for conduct that occurred while in office.

But special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the four-count federal indictment against Mr Trump, says differently, citing precedent that has determined presidents do not have immunity from criminal judicial proceedings.

Already, two lower courts have sided with Mr Smith but now the Supreme Court will weigh in to the debate.

Oral arguments will take place on Thursday, on the final day of the court’s arguments schedule.

Here’s everything to know about the case:

Mr Trump’s immunity argument stems from the federal election interference indictment that Mr Smith brought against him last year.

The former president is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

In an attempt to quash the case, Mr Trump filed a motion to dismiss the indictment to District Court