Trump says he believes case for presidential immunity was made 'clear' to Supreme Court

"The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity,” Trump said. “I think it was made clear, I hope it is very clear that a president has to have immunity."

By Misty Severi

Published: April 25, 2024 8:47pm

Former President Donald Trump applauded arguments before the Supreme Court today, saying his position that presidents should have immunity for things done in office was heard.

The Supreme Court said it would hear Trump’s arguments in February, after a grand jury in Washington, D.C. indicted Trump on four charges related to his role in the alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Arguments in the case were presented to the court Thursday.

Trump, who was stuck in a Manhattan courtroom to hear arguments related to his alleged hush money case, said he believes his side was made clear.

"The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity,” Trump told reporters outside of the Manhattan courthouse, per Fox News. “I think it was made clear, I hope it is very clear that a president has to have immunity."

Trump repeated his claim that a president without immunity would be powerless, and more “ceremonial” in its role, and said the immunity was “imperative” for the future of the country.

"That’s not what the founders had in mind, we want presidents that can get quite amazing." the former president said. "So let’s see how that turns out. ... But again, I say presidential immunity is very powerful. Presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won’t have a country anymore."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told NBC News on Thursday said he was not in favor of a broad presidential immunity ruling, but said there needed to be some presidential immunity “or he’d be in court all the time.”

The Supreme Court appears likely to reject the more broad argument of presidential immunity, and could punt the topic back to the lower courts for a more narrow scope. If it does return to the lower courts, it would likely cause a delay that could even push the trial into the presidential election.

A final ruling in the case is expected by mid-June.