Amy Coney Barrett May Disappoint Donald Trump

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett may disappoint Donald Trump in his presidential immunity case, according to legal experts.

On Thursday, the Court's justices heard arguments concerning the former president's claims that presidential immunity should shield him from criminal charges in the federal election interference case brought by Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith's investigation focused on Trump's actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, as well as efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, such as creating false slates of pro-Trump electors in states he had lost to President Joe Biden.

Trump's attorneys argued that his actions constituted official presidential acts and that he was raising concerns about the election's legitimacy in his official capacity as president. Prosecutors, however, argue that he was acting as a candidate, not a president, at the time.

Barrett, a Trump appointee, could be leaning against Trump, some legal experts said. Former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu told Newsweek that Barrett doesn't appear to accept the argument that Trump can't be tried on these charges at all.

"From her questions, it did seem that she was not buying into a complete immunity, meaning you can't consider anything about it," he said. "She was sort of interested in exploring whether these same immunity arguments are more appropriately raised, perhaps as trial defenses."

The justices generally appeared poised to send the decision back to a trial court for further fact-finding on the matter while not completely siding with Trump's position that he can't be tried in Smith's case, Wu said.

Such a move would benefit Trump by further delaying the trial, possibly until after November's election.

"I don't think you'd get a majority completely siding with Trump that you simply can't bring the case, period," Wu said. "I think it's more likely if they side with Trump, they'd send it back down."

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek he believes Barrett will likely "side with the liberals in rejecting the appeal" and seems to agree that "our current system works well and that Trump's radical proposal was unnecessary."

"I think the justices will send the case back to the lower courts to determine whether the fake electors and events leading up to the Capitol riots were official acts," he said.

Professor Carl Tobias, Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond, told Newsweek that while he believes the DOJ counsel presented their arguments more successfully than counsel for Trump, it is "exceedingly difficult" to know how the court will rule in the case.

He noted that remarks from Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to have "limited the possibility" that SCOTUS would affirm the DC Circuit Court's rejection of Trump's case and that several justices appear to be "concerned about imposing undue restraints on the President's power to take necessary actions."

"The Justices seemed to differ quite a bit on the issues and how best to resolve them partly because of the way the Court framed the issues to be resolved. The outcome may be close, and there could be multiple opinions," he said.

The court should rule on the case "as expeditiously as possible" so the trial can begin quickly, before the presidential election in November, Tobias said.

Newsweek reached out to Trump's campaign for comment via email.

Other legal experts said that Barrett seemed skeptical of Trump's arguments.

"There seem to be four votes mostly against Trump—the four women. Kavanaugh is seemingly not in play. This is going to come down to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will write the opinion. What he'll say, not so sure," Steven Mazie, a journalist who covers the Supreme Court for The Economist, wrote in a post to X (formerly Twitter).

"Amy Coney Barrett is not having it with Donald Trump today," posted Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University.

Ari Melber, an MSNBC host and attorney, wrote: "Trump appointee Barrett sounds skeptical of one of Trump's made-up arguments that has no precedent - that Congress must impeach and convict a President, but not other officials, before any DOJ prosecution."

Attorney Asha Rangappa wrote, "Barrett is asking some smart questions (like why not allow the public authority defense to function as a legal immunity question on the front end) and Dreeben is not offering clear answers, IMO. Did anyone understand his answer??"

Attorney Michael Dreeben is representing Smith in the arguments before the Supreme Court.

Update 4/26/2024 at 7:40 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.