Trump's 'Divine Right' Claim: Legal Experts Predict Supreme Court Rejection

Legal Experts Weigh In on Presidential Immunity Debate

by Zain ul Abedin
Trump's 'Divine Right' Claim: Legal Experts Predict Supreme Court Rejection
© Scott Olson/Getty Images

In a decisive turn of events, legal experts increasingly anticipate that the U.S. Supreme Court will reject former President Donald Trump's assertion of unlimited presidential immunity. This expectation arises amidst a backdrop of Trump facing 91 charges across four jurisdictions, unprecedented in American political history.

The critical issue revolves around Trump's efforts to contest the 2020 election results, which special counsel Jack Smith has scrutinized. Although the Supreme Court has deferred the immediate review of this matter to a lower appeals court, the overarching legal implications are expected to reach the highest court ultimately.

Predicting Supreme Court Stance

In a statement to The Daily Beast, Texas defense attorney Paul Saputo expressed his conviction regarding the outcome, suggesting a near-unanimous decision against Trump's claim. Saputo's perspective reflects a broader legal consensus that despite comprising three Trump-appointed justices, the Supreme Court will likely establish boundaries on executive power.

This potential ruling aligns with the historical legal stance on presidential accountability, as noted by Michael Waldman, head of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. Waldman highlighted the rarity of a president facing such serious allegations and the established principle of post-term legal accountability.

Significantly, the Supreme Court's deliberation will be informed by recent rulings that have progressively eroded the foundations of Trump's immunity claims. Notable among these are judgments by conservative judges, including a pivotal ruling by Judge William H.

Pryor, Jr., of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, who underscored the constitutional limits on executive interference in state electoral processes.

Challenging Presidential Immunity

In a related development, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing the election interference case in Washington, D.C., emphatically rejected the notion of presidential infallibility akin to a "divine right of kings." This ruling has set the stage for an eventual Supreme Court decision.

In further comments to The Daily Beast, Waldman expressed his belief that the Supreme Court will seek a balance between maintaining a strong executive branch and ensuring accountability for misconduct. He anticipates that the Court will clearly distinguish between ordinary presidential actions and attempts to subvert constitutional order, as alleged in Trump's case.

As the legal saga unfolds, the nation's eyes are fixed on the Supreme Court, which stands at the crossroads of redefining the scope of presidential immunity and accountability in the American constitutional framework.