SCOTUS seems set to 'narrow the scope' of criminal case against Trump: N.Y. Times

The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court seems set to "narrow the scope" of the criminal case against Donald Trump which alleges that he conspired to subvert the 2020 election, according to a new report.

If Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution because he was president is accepted, even in part, by the court, it would "most likely send the case back to the trial court to draw distinctions between official and private conduct," making it much harder to carry out the trial before the 2024 election, The New York Times reported.

Trump lawyer John Sauer argued that presidential orders to assassinate a political rival or to stage a coup could be covered by immunity in an answer to a hypothetical question, but "several of the conservative justices seemed disinclined to consider those questions or the details of the accusations against Mr. Trump.

"Instead, they said the court should issue a ruling that applies to presidential power generally," The Times' report stated, suggesting that were not dismissing Trump's argument.

According to Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court is writing "a rule for the ages."

Also read: 'Hostile fire': Ex-Trump lawyer highlights moment Neil Gorsuch targeted his former clerk

“This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country," Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

“A stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who added that if a president fears prosecution after they leave office, it could encourage to try to cling to power.

A criminal prosecution of Trump could "lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy," he said.

But according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a "stable democratic society, needs the good faith of its public officials.”

As The Times points out, the question before the court when it agreed to hear the case was whether there is immunity "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.”