‘Rot and decay’: Rep Hank Johnson argues SCOTUS term limits are path forward for removing ‘corrupt’ justices

Georgia Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson, a strong proponent of Supreme Court reform, says term limits for the justices is a way to eliminate "the possibility of long-term rot and decay" that he argues is present on the high court now. 

"Term limits is a way of creating a process that eliminates the possibility of long-term rot and decay due to corporate corruption on the court that we have now with no means of being able to correct it other than impeachment and conviction of a justice," Johnson told Fox News Digital in an interview Thursday.

"And if you could not impeach and convict Donald Trump, you're certainly not going to be able to remove a corrupt Supreme Court justice from office when he or she is doing the bidding of the right-wing forces that put them there in the very beginning."

Johnson, a ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, previously teamed up with Democrats in both the House and Senate to propose court reform bills in an effort to both expand the court and impose term limits on the justices. During Congress' most recent session, Johnson introduced the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act (TERM) that would impose 18-year term limits on justices.

LEAD COUNSEL HITS NEW DEM EFFORT TO 'DELEGITIMIZE' SUPREME COURT AMID SENATOR'S REPORT ON KAVANAUGH PROBE

In May 2023, Johnson joined Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Tina Smith, D-Minn., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as well as Democrat Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Cori Bush, D-Miss., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in reintroducing the Judiciary Act of 2023 that would expand the Supreme Court to a 13-justice bench. The nine-justice court currently has a conservative supermajority.

"We want to prevent this kind of rot and decay from ever overtaking a Supreme Court again," Johnson said. "And term limits would enable that to happen."

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON SAYS SUPREME COURT'S PUBLIC PERCEPTION AS TOO POLITICAL IS 'PROBLEMATIC'

Johnson went on to say that justices with lifetime tenure become "unaccountable, and they can do whatever they want," calling the bench "a club of kings and queens who can do whatever they want to do simply because they serve in a third co-equal branch of government."

President Biden previously voiced support for such reform, releasing a statement in late July delineating three specific reforms, one of which called for Congress to approve term limits. Vice President Harris echoed Biden's sentiments, saying in a statement that reforms were being proposed because "there is a clear crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court."

JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON SAYS SHE WOULD SUPPORT AN 'ENFORCEABLE CODE' OF ETHICS FOR THE SUPREME COURT

Johnson said he has yet to have direct conversations with Harris about implementing such reforms in anticipation of the vice president possibly winning the Oval Office in November, but he said she is "aware of the challenge that we face."

"She's supportive of efforts like my legislation," Johnson said. "So I look forward to having future conversations with, hopefully, President-elect and future President Kamala Harris and her team."

Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for comment.

Johnson acknowledged that proposals to reform the court would face an uphill battle toward enactment, with the congressman foreseeing the Senate blocking the measures with a filibuster.

"We're in it for the long haul, and however long it takes, this legislation will be there for consideration," he said.

Amy Coney Barrett asserts her voice, carries on Scalia legacy

After her fourth term on the bench, Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett is asserting her voice and following in the footsteps of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a pioneer of originalism on the high court and her former boss. 

Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump in October 2020 to fill the seat of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, surprised some this term by voting in a few key cases with the Democrat-appointed minority.

But legal experts say that the former law professor is proving that her interpretation of the Constitution is consistent with what the Founding Fathers intended, and that disagreements between her and her fellow conservative justices should be "celebrated."

"This term we have seen all the originalist justices engaged in a healthy debate about how to apply tenets of originalism and textualism in many different contexts," Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "And that is a sign that the originalist project has matured, and that the justices are fleshing out these important principles, and it should be celebrated."

AOC FILES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST JUSTICES ALITO, THOMAS, ALLEGES 'UNCHECKED CORRUPTION'

For many years, a widely lauded and accepted judicial philosophy was that the Constitution was a "living and breathing document." But conservative legal practitioners contested that approach as too volatile to political whims, judicially inappropriate and a departure from what the founders actually wrote in their original intent. 

But in the 1980s, the concept of an originalist interpretation of the law started to grow, largely driven by Reagan-appointed Justice Scalia.  

"It used to be that the late, great, Justice Scalia was basically the only originalist on the court," said John Shu, a constitutional lawyer and former official in both Bush administrations. "Then, in 1991, it became Scalia and Thomas and sometimes Rehnquist. In 2005 and 2006, it became Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.  And since 2017, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and of course Justice Barrett joined the Court, and she is very much following in Justice Scalia’s, for whom she clerked, footsteps."

Some experts say that approach bore out this term when Barrett sided with her liberal colleagues in the case in which the majority ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal "obstruction" crime. 

That case will likely aid the legal arguments of former President Trump who was charged with obstruction, among other crimes, by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT SAYS PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF SCOTUS IS 'WELCOME'

In her dissent, Barrett wrote that by "narrowing" a federal statute, the Court "failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches."

"[S]tatutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway," Barrett wrote, adding that the Court’s majority abandoned that approach and does "textual backflips to find some way— any way—to narrow the reach" of the statue at issue. 

Severino says that in her dissent, Barrett was "exactly in line" with Scalia's approach to that type of clause.

"Within originalism and textualism, there are people who in some particular instances may disagree on how those principles apply in a specific case," Severino wrote. "So it's not surprising that Barrett is going to have a different approach than Thomas or Alito or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. They all have their own slightly different flavors, different personality, to exactly how they apply those," Severino said. 

"It’s a great sign that the justices are openly discussing what's the best way to apply originalism and textualism, the original intent and the actual text, which is what good and fair judges are supposed to do," said Shu.

"Justice Barrett’s opinions from this term indicate that the Scalia approach, over time, carried the day," he said.  "He also was great at showing how the originalist perspective is the common-sense perspective, and the one most faithful to the law and to a judge’s responsibilities."

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, noted that Barrett "was law professor for a long time, so she has a different background than everybody else on the court."

"She's very thoughtful, she's very intellectual, she's very theoretical. She wants to get the theory right. She's a professor's justice," he observed. 

"She’s still very much in the Scalia mode. She's thinking about how to apply history and tradition and what that test means, and getting the theory of the matter right," he said. 

Which he said "was clear in the immunity decision, where she agreed fully with Robert's majority opinion, but said it would have been better to reframe this as an unconstitutional application of criminal law, rather than calling it immunity."

BIDEN'S SCOTUS CRITIQUES LARGELY UNPRECEDENTED, EXPERTS SAY, CONTRAST WITH CLINTON'S DEFERENCE IN 2000

"She's not a moderate. She's not a centrist. She’s not moving left," Shapiro said. "She’s an originalist and a textualist."

Jennifer Mascott, law professor at Catholic University and former Justice Department official, said Barrett’s writings this term "show a highly intelligent, careful principal jurist who is looking herself, as all the justices do, independently at the questions before her, and just taking the time for the American public to explain in important cases where she may have done something differently than the majority opinion." 

Notably, Barrett authored a concurrence in the case in which the high court unanimously ruled that Colorado could not remove Trump from 2024 election ballot. 

"The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up," she wrote. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."

The former Notre Dame professor is not without criticism on the right, with some conservative observers saying she can be too cautious or timid when it comes to upsetting precedent.

Giancarlo Canaparo, senior fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, says Barrett is "extremely mindful of the difference between conservative judges and conservative politicians, and she's trying very hard to be a conservative judge."

"And that means, I think, for her, not only being faithful to the text of the law and the Constitution, but also making sure that the court doesn't move on a particular issue until it’s sort of aware of the downstream effects on this doctrine or that doctrine," he said.

Canaparo observed that Barrett "needs to feel like she knows everything that can possibly be known" about a matter in order to make a move. 

"She's going to take positions when she feels like she knows everything, which is often in in those few areas where she wrote that she wrote about as a professor, but in other cases, we see areas where she's unwilling to make moves based on whatever information she has on hand, which you know that can be a good thing sometimes. Sometimes not."

But "sometimes, like a general, you've got to go with what information you have," he said. 

"Sometimes it seems like maybe she doesn't actually want a particular party to win, or she doesn't want to make a particular move, and so she uses the claim that there isn't enough information in the record as sort of an out."

Canaparo's critique aside, though, conservative legal watchers appear to sign on to Bush administration veteran John Shu's opinion that, "all in all, I think it’s great that a former Scalia clerk is now on the Court to carry on his legacy."

AOC files articles of impeachment against Justices Alito, Thomas, alleges ‘unchecked corruption’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., filed articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas on Wednesday, alleging "unchecked corruption."

Ocasio-Cortez threatened to file the articles last week, raising arguments about undisclosed gifts Thomas has received from wealthy conservatives and recent controversies involving Alito's home and personal politics.

"The unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court has now spiraled into a Constitutional crisis threatening American democracy writ large," Cortez wrote in a statement. "Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law, the integrity of our democracy, and one of the clearest cases for which the tool of impeachment was designed."

"Justice Thomas and Alito’s repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law. And their refusal to recuse from the specific matters and cases before the court in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis. These failures alone would amount to a deep transgression worthy of standard removal in any lower court, and would disqualify any nominee to the highest court from confirmation in the first place," she argued.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS BLAST RULING ON TRUMP IMMUNITY: 'EXTREME RIGHT-WING SUPREME COURT'

Ocasio-Cortez's Wednesday filing includes three articles of impeachment against Thomas and two against Alito. The charges against Thomas involve undisclosed gifts as well as his lack of recusal in cases allegedly involving his wife's legal and financial interests.

NY DEM SLAMS 'SQUAD' MEMBER'S PROFANITY-LACED RANT AT RALLY WITH AOC: 'UNHINGED'

The charges against Alito also include failure to disclose gifts and his lack of recusal in cases in which he had "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party" before the court.

Ocasio-Cortez first threatened an article of soft impeachment following the Supreme Court's ruling in former President Trump's immunity case. The ruling in question said a president has absolute immunity from prosecution for "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," and "presumptive immunity" for official acts in general. The court said there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

SCOTUS RULES EX-PRESIDENTS HAVE PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION FOR OFFICIAL ACTS IN IMMUNITY CASE

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X following the decision. "Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return." 

The lawmaker argues that Alito was biased in favor of Trump and participants in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. She and other critics base the accusation on Alito flying an "appeal to heaven" flag at his home. The flag has been a symbol associated with American independence since before the Revolutionary War.

Congressional Dems blast ruling on Trump immunity: ‘Extreme right-wing Supreme Court’

Democratic lawmakers lamented the conservative majority Supreme Court's decision on Monday, granting presidents limited immunity for actions in their official capacity. 

"This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote on X. "The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law."

"Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president," he continued. 

SCOTUS RULES EX-PRESIDENTS HAVE PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION FOR OFFICIAL ACTS IN IMMUNITY CASE

The court ruled on Monday that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution when it comes to official acts while they are in office, but this does not extend to unofficial acts. The ruling was decided 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," he wrote. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said she would introduce articles of impeachment over the decision, though she did not specify which justices she would target.

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return," Ocasio-Cortez said on X.

Minutes later, fellow progressive Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, responded, "Count me in."

Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., claimed in a statement, "This Court has lost all credibility—made painfully clear by the fact that Justice Thomas and Justice Alito refused to recuse themselves from this case despite their glaring lack of impartiality."

BALANCE OF POWER: DEM REP SAYS PEOPLE WILL 'WANT TO TALK ABOUT' BIDEN STATUS ON TICKET AFTER DEBATE

The Vermont lawmaker has been an advocate of ethical reform for the nation's highest court. 

The ruling sets a "dangerous precedent," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution," he added. 

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called the ruling "shocking."

"The extreme right-wing Supreme Court just drastically weakened accountability if a president attempts to use their office for criminal purposes. It’s a disastrous ruling that could have grave effects on our democracy," she claimed. 

VULNERABLE DEMS WON'T SAY WHETHER BIDEN SHOULD BE NOMINEE: 'PRESIDENT CAN MAKE HIS OWN DECISIONS'

Another strong advocate for ethics reform, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., wrote on X, "My stomach turns with fear & anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control Court."

"The members of Court’s conservative majority will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme & nakedly partisan hacks—politicians in robes," he said. 

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claimed the Supreme Court had gone "rogue" in its decision-making. "The former president’s claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King," she said in a statement. 

Democrats in Congress were quick to point out that three of the justices were appointed by former President Trump. According to Schumer, the decision on immunity, handed down by the court's conservatives, "suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today."

TOP 5 MOMENTS DURING TRUMP-BIDEN DEBATE SHOWDOWN: 'I DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH A PORN STAR'

"He appointed 3 extreme judges and is now exploiting the powers of the president in ways that were once unthinkable. The court can no longer be counted on to defend the constitution," said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif. 

Vulnerable Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin avoided opining on the ruling itself, but bashed the Supreme Court in general on X. "Reminder: Republicans and this activist Supreme Court are responsible for stripping away women’s reproductive rights and they aren’t done attacking our freedoms. My Women’s Health Protection Act would restore these rights everywhere across the country. Let’s pass it," she wrote. 

SCOTUS weighs monumental constitutional fight over Trump immunity claim

The Supreme Court waded cautiously Thursday in a landmark area of law it has never before encountered: whether former presidents have "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution, stemming from the special counsel's federal election interference case.

In a special courtroom session lasting more than two and a half hours, the justices appeared to be looking for middle ground that might see at least some of Trump's sweeping claims dismissed, while still allowing future presidents to be criminally exempt from clearly official executive functions — like their role as commander in chief.

The official question the justices are confronting: "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?"

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY AT ODDS OVER EMERGENCY ROOM ABORTION ACCESS IN STATES' RIGHTS CHALLENGE

In riveting arguments, a partisan divide developed early on the nine-member bench, as it weighed whether and when executive official duties versus private conduct in office could be subject to prosecution.

Both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications for future presidents.

"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?" asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."        

Justice Samuel Alito asked, "If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?"

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes, however the court rules: "This will have huge implications for the presidency."

Trump was not in attendance at the argument but talked about the stakes when greeting supporters at a New York construction site.

"A president has to have immunity," he said Thursday morning. "If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president, you won't have a president."

The underlying factor is time — whether the court's expedited ruling, expected in May or June, would allow any criminal trial to get underway before the November presidential election. Depending on the outcome, jury selection could begin by late summer or early fall, or the case could be delayed indefinitely or dismissed altogether. 

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY DIVIDED OVER ENFORCING MUNICIPAL HOMELESS CAMPING BAN

The stakes could not be higher, for both the immediate political prospects and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. 

As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his broad constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority — with three of its members having been appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged the former president with 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.

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election results, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Smith and several of his deputies attended the arguments. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW WHETHER TRUMP IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN FEDERAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

The lengthy courtroom arguments raised a series of hypotheticals to explore the "outer perimeter" of criminal executive liability.

Several justices wondered whether a president could someday be prosecuted for ordering the assassination by his military of a political rival; ordering a nuclear weapons strike; or demanding a bribe for a political appointment.

"If you expunge the official part from the indictment, that's like a one-legged stool, right?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, suggesting official executive acts could be separated from partisan, unofficial acts. "I mean, giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange. And if what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador of a particular country, that is official: the appointment that's within the president's prerogatives. The unofficial part: I'm going to get $1,000,000 for it."

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the president could stage a coup to remain in office. When John Sauer, Trump's attorney, hedged on an answer, Kagan replied, "That answer sounds to me as though, under my test, it's an official act," subject to post-office prosecution. "But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?"

She added there was no immunity clause in the Constitution for a good reason. "Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?"

Michael Dreeben, attorney for the Special Counsel’s office, defended the government’s position.

"It's baked into the Constitution that any president knows that they are exposed to potential criminal prosecution," he said. "It's common ground that all former presidents have known that they could be indicted and convicted. And Watergate cemented that understanding."

Sauer suggested only an impeachment and conviction in the Senate could lead to future criminal prosecution of an ex-president.

"There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench," said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, pointing to her colleagues, "and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment. So why is the president different when the impeachment clause doesn't say so?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused on the specific allegations facing Trump and other potential criminal liability, which no jury has yet considered. "I'm having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe and a countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that."

TRUMP WARNS THAT IF HE LOSES PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, SO WILL 'CROOKED' JOE BIDEN

But Kavanaugh, who served as President George W. Bush's staff secretary, a key White House legal adviser on executive power, offered larger concerns.

"I'm not focused on the here and now of this case. I'm very concerned about the future," he said.

"We're writing a rule for the ages," added Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: another federal case over his handling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York case over alleged fraud involving hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York state case began April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Again, depending on how the court rules, proceedings may not get underway until later this summer, early fall, or perhaps much later.

The wildest of wildcards: Trump wins re-election and then, upon taking office, orders his attorney general to dismiss the special counsel and his cases. Some justices wondered if Trump — if re-elected — could execute a self-pardon for all past and future crimes.

But the practical fact is that Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited, so a ruling could come sooner. 

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" — meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume. 

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial. 

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean his election interference prosecution collapses and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases.

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court — an indefinite delay in any trial, that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.  

The case is Trump v. U.S. (23-939).

Trump attorney, Supreme Court justice clash on whether a president who ‘ordered’ a ‘coup’ could be prosecuted

An attorney for former President Donald Trump in the presidential immunity hearing clashed with Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan over a hypothetical question on whether a president who "ordered" a "coup" could be prosecuted. 

"If it's an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand," Trump's attorney John Sauer argued Thursday before the Supreme Court, which is being broadcast publicly via audio only. 

Sauer's statement was in response to Justice Elena Kagan's hypothetical question, asking if a president who is no longer in office directing the military to stage a coup would constitute an "official act."

"He's no longer president. He wasn't impeached. He couldn't be impeached. But he ordered the military to stage a coup. And you're saying that's an official act?," Kagan asked.

LIVE UPDATES: TRUMP NY TRIAL TESTIMONY RESUMES AS SUPREME COURT HEARS IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

"I think it would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act. If it were an official act, again, he would have to be impeached," Sauer responded. 

"What does that mean? Depend on the circumstances? He was the president. He is the commander in chief. He talks to his generals all the time. And he told the generals, 'I don't feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup.' Is that immune [from prosecution]?" Kagan pressed.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY CASE

Sauer responded it would "depend on the circumstances of whether there was an official act" if the hypothetical president would be immune from prosecution. 

"That answer sounds to me as though it's like, 'Yeah, under my test it's an official act.' But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?" Kagan said.

TRUMP SAYS NY JUDGE MERCHAN 'THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT' AFTER BARRING HIM FROM IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

"That's why the framers have a whole series of structural checks that have successfully, for the last 234 years, prevented that very kind of extreme hypothetical. And that is the wisdom of the framers. What they viewed as the risk that needed to be guarded against was not the notion that the president might escape, you know, a criminal prosecution for something, you know, sort of very, very unlikely in these unlikely scenarios," Sauer responded.

"The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how there were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn't provide immunity to the president. And, you know, not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law," Kagan said. 

The back and forth came as the Supreme Court weighs whether Trump is immune from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case. Smith’s case is currently on pause until the Supreme Court issues a ruling. The case charged Trump with 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. The case stems from Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of Trump breached the U.S. Capitol. 

TRUMP SLAMS 'BIDENOMICS' AHEAD OF COURT, CLAIMS TO HAVE A 'GOOD CHANCE' OF WINNING LIBERAL STATE

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August, and called on the Supreme Court to weigh whether a former president can be prosecuted for "official acts," as the Trump legal team argues. 

The Supreme Court is expected to reach a resolution on whether Trump is immune from prosecution by mid-June. 

Trump is also part of an ongoing trial in New York City where he is accused of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to each charge. The trial prevented Trump from attending the Supreme Court hearing Thursday. 

BIDEN INSISTS RED STATE WON TWICE BY TRUMP IS SUDDENLY 'IN PLAY'

The NY v. Trump case focuses on Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen paying former pornographic actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to allegedly quiet her claims of an alleged extramarital affair she had with the then-real estate tycoon in 2006. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen, and fraudulently logged the payments as legal expenses. Prosecutors are working to prove that Trump falsified records with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime, which is a felony.  Prosecutors this week said the second crime was a violation of a New York law called "conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

Supreme Court to debate ‘sleeper’ case that could affect Trump federal prosecution

It is the "sleeper" case that could upend the most closely watched criminal prosecution in the nation. And how the U.S. Supreme Court decides the fate of an obscure Capitol riot defendant will have immediate legal and political implications for the former and perhaps future president.    

The justices on Tuesday will hold oral arguments in the appeal of Joseph Fischer, one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection in Washington.

That charge refers to the disruption of Congress’ certification of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory over Donald Trump.

Special counsel Jack Smith has also brought an obstruction charge against Trump, which is among four counts the 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee faces. His trial in that case was slated to begin March 4, but the Supreme Court's decision to hear this case and a separate dispute over Trump's claim of presidential immunity has delayed proceedings indefinitely.

THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO MAYORKAS' IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

A federal judge earlier dismissed the obstruction offense against three Jan. 6 criminal defendants, ruling it did not cover their conduct on the Capitol grounds. Those defendants are onetime police patrolman Fischer, Garret Miller of the Dallas area and Edward Jacob Lang of New York’s Hudson Valley.

Fischer's appeal was the one the high court accepted for final review.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a 2019 Trump bench appointee, determined prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases, ruling a defendant must have taken "some action with respect to a document, record or other object" to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.

He concluded the statute in question focused on tampering with evidence and did not apply to those allegedly engaged in "assaultive conduct" like participating in a riot.

The Justice Department challenged that ruling, and a federal appeals court in Washington agreed with prosecutors that Nichols’ interpretation of the law was too limited.

"The vast majority of courts interpreting the statute have adopted the natural, broad reading" of the provision, the three-judge appellate panel wrote, "applying the statute to all forms of obstructive conduct that are not covered" specifically under that provision. 

Other defendants, including Trump, are separately challenging the use of the charge, but not as part of the current Supreme Court appeal.

The relevant statute — 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2) — of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, states: "Whoever corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

Congress passed the law in 2002 after the Enron financial and accounting scandal. Executives at the Texas-based energy company were charged with fraud, and the company eventually went bankrupt.

Judge Nichols in his ruling in the Miller case cited then-Sen. Biden, who referred to the new provision at the time as "making it a crime for document shredding."  

Both the government and Fischer, who was a North Cornwall Township Police officer in Pennsylvania at the time, offer contrasting accounts of his actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

His lawyers in their high court appeal say Fischer "was not part of the mob that forced the electoral certification to stop; he arrived at the Capitol grounds well after Congress recessed."

And while he admits entering the Capitol building and pushing his way through the crowd, Fischer claims he also helpfully returned a pair of lost handcuffs to a U.S. Capitol Police officer. After being pepper-sprayed by law enforcement, the defendant then says he left the complex just four minutes after entering.

But the Justice Department says Fischer "can be heard on the video yelling 'Charge!' before pushing through the crowd and entering the building. Once inside, petitioner ran toward a line of police officers with another rioter while yelling" a profanity.

And the government points to text messages he sent just before attending the "Stop the Steal" rally where President Trump spoke and the subsequent march to the Capitol.

"Take democratic congress to the gallows," he said in one post, and, "Can't vote if they can't breathe.. lol."

Fischer has pleaded not guilty to several charges, including disorderly and disruptive conduct; assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement officers; civil disorder; and the obstruction count. His trial is pending.

His legal team argues hindering or affecting an official proceeding is too ambiguous, as applied to Fischer's conduct on the Capitol grounds.

"That definition encompasses lobbying, advocacy, and protest, the very mechanisms that citizens employ to influence government. These are all forms of political speech that the First Amendment protects." 

But the government says Congress in enacting the statute meant it to be applied widely, to include "corruptly engaging in conduct to obstruct court, agency, and congressional proceedings."

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE'S RED LINE ON SPEAKER JOHNSON

"The proof in this case would show that on January 6, 2021, petitioner and other rioters corruptly sought to prevent Congress from counting the certified votes of the Electoral College in the joint session," said government lawyers.

Some legal scholars say the conservative high court may be wary of giving the government too much leeway.

"Prosecutors love obstruction statutes, and they love conspiracy statutes, because those statutes are so broad and can be applied in a variety of circumstances to encompass all sorts of conduct," said Thomas Dupree, a leading appellate attorney and former top Bush Justice Department official. 

"The Supreme Court is going to look at what was Congress trying to do when it criminalized these things? Did Congress really intend these laws to sweep so far? And can you take a statute that was enacted to address, for example, corporate crimes and apply it to what happened on Jan. 6?"

How a Supreme Court ruling in the Fischer case would affect Trump's separate prosecution for alleged election interference is unclear. If Fischer prevails, the former president could then ask the federal courts to formally dismiss his own obstruction charge.

That could prompt a new round of separate legal appeals that might go back to the Supreme Court for final review.  

Nine days after oral arguments in the Fischer case, the justices will hold a public session to debate whether Trump enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for conduct in office when allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election results and certification.

That has paused Trump's criminal conspiracy and obstruction trial indefinitely.

The separate challenge over the obstruction charge would also likely push the schedule well into next year.

The pending high court case is Fischer v. U.S. (23-5572). A ruling is expected by early summer.

Trump tells Supreme Court a denial of immunity would ‘incapacitate every future president,’ in initial brief

Former President Trump told the Supreme Court in his initial brief that he should be immune from criminal charges, arguing that a denial would "incapacitate every future president with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office," and would create "post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents." 

Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, and his legal team filed the 67-page brief to the high court on Tuesday. 

The Supreme Court will hear initial arguments on the issue of presidential immunity on April 25, after Trump argued that he should be immune from prosecution on charges stemming from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into alleged election interference in 2020 and Jan. 6. 

Smith’s trial is on hold pending the high court’s ruling, which is expected to be handed down in mid-June. 

"A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents," the brief states. "The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency." 

The brief lays out the case brought against Trump. 

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW WHETHER TRUMP IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN FEDERAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

"The indictment charges President Trump with five types of conduct, all constituting official acts of the President," the brief states. "First, it alleges that President Trump, using official channels of communication, made a series of tweets and other public statements on matters of paramount federal concern, contending that the 2020 federal election was tainted by fraud and irregularities that should be addressed by government officials." 

"Second, the indictment alleges that President Trump communicated with the Acting Attorney General and officials at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding investigating suspected election crimes and irregularities, and whether to appoint a new Acting Attorney General," it continues. "Third, the indictment alleges that President Trump communicated with state officials about the administration of the federal election and urged them to exercise their official responsibilities in accordance with the conclusion that the 2020 presidential election was tainted by fraud and irregularities."

TRUMP SAYS SUPREME COURT RULING IN COLORADO CASE IS 'UNIFYING AND INSPIRATIONAL'

"Fourth, the indictment alleges that President Trump communicated with the Vice President, the Vice President’s official staff, and members of Congress to urge them to exercise their official duties in the election certification process in accordance with the position, based on voluminous information available to President Trump in his official capacity, that the election was tainted by extensive fraud and irregularities," it states. "Fifth, the indictment alleges that other individuals organized slates of alternate electors from seven States to help ensure that the Vice President would be authorized to exercise his official duties in the manner urged by President Trump." 

The brief states that according to the indictment, "these alternate slates of electors were designed to validate the Vice President’s authority to conduct his official duties as President Trump urged." 

"President Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity," the brief states. "The district court wrongfully held that a former President enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, likewise incorrectly holding that a former President has no immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts." 

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal. 

Trump's attorneys argue that "A former President enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts." 

"Criminal immunity arises directly from the Executive Vesting Clause and the separation of powers," the brief argues. "The Impeachment Judgment Clause reflects the Founders’ understanding that only a President ‘convicted’ by the Senate after impeachment could be criminally prosecuted. The Constitution authorizes the criminal prosecution of a former President, but it builds in a formidable structural check against politically motivated prosecutions by requiring a majority of the House and a supermajority of the Senate to authorize such a dramatic action." 

"The Founders thus carefully balanced the public interest in ensuring accountability for Presidential wrongdoing against the mortal danger to our system of government presented by political targeting of the Chief Executive," the brief states. "The long history of not prosecuting Presidents for official acts, despite ample motive and opportunity to do so over the years, demonstrates that the newly discovered alleged power to do so does not exist." 

TRUMP SPEAKS AFTER SUPREME COURT RULING, TELLS BIDEN TO 'FIGHT YOUR FIGHT YOURSELF'

Trump and his attorney argue that the "lack of historical precedent" provides "a telling indication of a severe constitutional problem with the asserted power."

Trump attorneys also argued that the impeachment judgment clause of the Constitution "confirms the original meaning of the Executive Vesting Clause — i.e., that current and former Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts." 

Trump attorneys argue that "the Impeachment Judgment Clause provides that, after impeachment and Senate trial, ‘the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.’" 

"By specifying that only the ‘Party convicted’ may be subject to criminal prosecution, the Clause dictates the President cannot be prosecuted unless he is first impeached and convicted by the Senate," the brief states. 

Trump lawyers argued that "the Clause’s plain language presupposes that an unimpeached and un-convicted President is immune from prosecution." 

Smith charged the former president with 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. Those charges stemmed from Smith’s investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges. 

Haley says Trump should not be ‘entirely immune’ from criminal penalties

EXCLUSIVE: Former President Trump's 2024 Republican primary rival Nikki Haley is backing the Supreme Court's decision to take up his immunity case and "settle it once and for all," arguing that commanders-in-chief should not be "entirely immune" from criminal penalties.

"The Supreme Court should take up this question and settle it once and for all.  No person should be entirely immune from penalties for crimes committed, not even a president – not Clinton, not Biden, and not Trump," Haley told Fox News Digital on Thursday.

In a win for the former president, the court agreed to review whether he has immunity from prosecution in the Special Counsel's federal election interference case. The court, stacked with three justices nominated by Trump, moved to expedite the matter, planning to begin arguments the week of April 22 and producing a ruling by late June. Trump's criminal trial has been put on hold pending resolution of the matter.

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO EXTEND DELAY IN ELECTION CASE, CLAIMING PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY

Sen. Ron Johnson R-Wis., applauded the development, telling Fox News Digital, "The fact that the Supreme Court took it up is pretty telling." 

Discussing the delay in Trump's federal election interference case as a result, Johnson claimed, "I think these very partisan prosecutions, that's what they're designed to do." The Supreme Court's agreement to hear the appeal is likely to push Trump's federal trial into the late summer or early fall, not far from the November presidential election.

"They are election interference to a far greater extent than anything Russia or China ever could hope to accomplish," he continued.

The senator was hopeful the court's choice signaled some resistance to the "election interference," but noted, "We'll see how the Supreme Court rules."

Trump foes, meanwhile, criticized the Supreme Court for being willing to hear the case.

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claimed the court is "placing itself on trial" with the decision and questioned "whether the justices will uphold the fundamental American value that no one is above the law – not even a former president." 

Former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., also slammed the court's plan to review Trump's claim of presidential immunity. "Delaying the January 6 trial suppresses critical evidence that Americans deserve to hear," she wrote on X. 

TRUMP TRIAL DELAYED IN CASE STEMMING FROM SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH'S JAN. 6 INVESTIGATION

"Donald Trump attempted to overturn an election and seize power. Our justice system must be able to bring him to trial before the next election. SCOTUS should decide this case promptly," she added. 

Cheney was a part of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack before her House term ended. She ran for reelection but was defeated in her Republican primary by Rep. Harriet Hageman. R-Wyo. 

An impeachment manager for Trump's second impeachment trial, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., predicted the Supreme Court taking up the case could help guarantee a "blue wave" in November.

"My view of the SCOTUS action: if the trial is delayed until after November, we will see THE LARGEST BLUE WAVE IN HISTORY," Lieu wrote on X. "If November becomes a referendum on whether Trump faces justice, then Democrats will absolutely flip the House. keep the White House and expand the Senate."

Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., said on the social media platform that the Supreme Court decision will "help Donald Trump run out the clock and avoid justice."

Supreme Court prepares hearing on Trump removal from Colorado ballot

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon debate whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from Colorado's primary ballot, the first of what could be several legal challenges by Trump to confront the nine justices.

At issue is whether Trump committed "insurrection" by inciting a crowd to storm the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, 2021, and whether that would make him constitutionally ineligible to be re-elected president. That, in turn, could block him from appearing on a state primary ballot as a candidate for that office.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m. ET, and an expedited ruling could come within days or weeks.

The issues have never been tested at the nation's highest court and are framed as both a constitutional and political fight with enormous stakes for public confidence in the judicial system and the already divisive electoral process.

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO KEEP NAME ON COLORADO BALLOT

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the Constitution states, "No person shall… hold any office… under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Colorado's highest court in December ruled that clause covers Trump's conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore does apply to a president despite not being explicitly indicated in the text. 

"President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president," the state court wrote in an unsigned opinion. "Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot."

SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF TRUMP BANNED FROM COLORADO BALLOT IN HISTORIC CASE

The issue could turn on whether the high court interprets "officer of the United States" to apply to a president's conduct in office.

Trump's legal team in its merits brief said, "The [Supreme] Court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado's lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots."

The Constitution treats the presidency separately from other federal officers, Trump's team argued.

"The president swears a different oath set forth in Article II, in which he promises to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States' — and in which the word 'support' is nowhere to be found," like it appears in Section 3, Trump's team wrote.

But lawyers for the Colorado voters challenging Trump's eligibility said in response, "The thrust of Trump's position is less legal than it is political. He not-so-subtly threatens 'bedlam' if he is not on the ballot. But we already saw the 'bedlam' Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost. Section 3 is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump the power to unleash such mayhem again.

"Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law," the brief added, comparing Trump to a "mob boss."

Also at issue:

TRUMP BACKED BY 27 STATES IN SUPREME COURT FIGHT, WHO WARN OF 2024 'CHAOS' IF HE'S REMOVED FROM BALLOT

– Whether state courts or elected state officials can unilaterally enforce constitutional provisions and declare candidates ineligible for federal office — so-called "self-executing" authority — or is that exclusively the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress. Also, whether Trump can be disqualified without a thorough fact-finding or criminal trial.

– Whether this issue is a purely "political" one that voters should ultimately decide.

– Whether the U.S. Senate's acquittal at his impeachment trial over Jan. 6 makes him therefore eligible to seek re-election.

– And whether Section 3 prohibits individuals only from "holding" office, not from "seeking or winning" election to office.

More than a dozen states have pending legal challenges over Trump's ballot eligibility.

At least 16 state courts and secretaries of state have already concluded his name can appear on the ballot. Colorado and Maine are the only two so far to keep his name off.

Other states are saying stay tuned. The Oregon Supreme Court earlier this year dismissed a related lawsuit but told a coalition of voters that, based on what the U.S. Supreme Court decides, they can refile again.

In conducting what are expected to be lengthy and contentious oral arguments, the justices will likely be forced to revisit the events of Jan. 6 and the pivotal speech Trump gave to supporters just before Congress was to certify the Electoral College ballots.

Trump has repeatedly claimed he was not trying to incite violence and that his speech was protected by First Amendment guarantees, especially pertinent as the top federal office holder.

The storming of the U.S. Capitol left 140 law enforcement officers injured, and lawmakers and Vice President Pence fled a mob that breached the building.

The Colorado decision has been on pause pending the U.S. Supreme Court's final ruling.

MAINE'S TOP COURT WON'T RULE ON TRUMP BALLOT ELIGIBILITY UNTIL SUPREME COURT DECISION IN COLORADO

The state's 2024 presidential primary ballot with Trump's name on the Republican ballot has already been certified by the Colorado secretary of state.

But if Trump is ultimately declared ineligible for public office before the state's March 5 primary, any votes cast in his favor would be nullified.

The Supreme Court has traditionally been reluctant to get involved in overtly political disputes, especially involving elections.

The partisan blowback over the 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore still resonates, creating the impression among the public that many of the justices harbor partisan political intentions.

"Sometimes the Supreme Court has no choice but to be involved in the election cases because that is an area where, unlike most, the Supreme Court doesn't even have discretion over whether it takes the case," said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. 

"There are some voting rights and election cases that the Supreme Court is required to resolve on the merits."

It is important to note the legal debate over "insurrection" comes to the Supreme Court on a ballot eligibility question.

Special counsel Jack Smith is separately prosecuting Trump for alleged election interference leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, but the former president is not charged specifically with "insurrection" or "rebellion." The four charges he faces relate to conspiracy and obstruction. Some legal scholars have pointed out Section 3 does not require a criminal conviction to take effect.

The Supreme Court could soon be asked to decide an important component of Smith's federal case — whether Trump has "absolute immunity" for alleged crimes committed in office.

A federal appeals court is considering the question, and the issue could soon reach the high court on an expedited basis. 

Trump's criminal trial was scheduled for March 4, 2024, but it is likely any Supreme Court consideration of the issues would force a delay, perhaps past the November election.

The former president also faces a state criminal prosecution for alleged election interference in Georgia; a federal criminal prosecution in Florida for alleged mishandling of classified documents that is also led by the special counsel; and a New York state criminal case over allegedly falsifying business records for hush money payments to a porn star. 

And there are various civil claims against Trump, from lawsuits: by U.S. Capitol police officers over Jan. 6; alleged fraud involving various Trump-related businesses; and an $83 million defamation judgment stemming from an alleged sexual assault.

It is unclear if any of these cases will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal on the merits. Some may not be considered for years.

In the short term, any further petition with the name "Trump" on the cover could severely strain public confidence in a judicial institution designed to hover above partisan politics.

"I don't think that the court really follows the political calendar," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department attorney in the George W. Bush administration. "I think they're aware of the fact, obviously, that we're in an election year, but I don't think the fact that we're in an election year is going to be driving the outcomes of any of these decisions."

The ballot case is Trump v. Anderson (23-719).