George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley argued over the weekend that the Supreme Court needed to strike a balance when ruling over whether presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution.
Turley made the remarks during an interview with Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday”.
“There is a slippery slope on both sides, but I was surprised with the three justices on the left, is that they didn’t seem at all concerned about how extreme that argument would be — leaving a president with no protection,” he said. “So the question that most of the justices were struggling with, and I thought they were doing in good faith, is how do we find a more balanced, nuanced approach here?”
“The government made a major concession to Justice Gorsuch when he said there are things you can’t criminalize that a president does and the government said yes,” he continued. “And he said doesn’t it sound a lot like immunity? Isn’t it our job to try to define where that is? It was a devastating moment.”
He added, “So there is a real chance that this could be sent back to the trial court, to say we need more information of which of these acts were part of an official function, and which were not. That will take time and likely derail any effort to try Trump before the election in Washington D.C.”