The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to expedite a ruling on President Donald Trump’s claims for immunity to civil lawsuits, meaning the question of whether the president is immune from them remains unanswered for now.
The issue arose after three lawsuits were brought against the president by the state of New York, a private business, and an employee of the Trump Organization. The plaintiffs alleged various profiteering or fraud activities, and requested that their cases be allowed to move forward in the justice system.
However, the president argued that as president he was immune from civil lawsuits such as these. His legal team requested that the Supreme Court expedite its ruling on the issue, to ensure that it could be determined before the president potentially leaves office in January 2021.
The Supreme Court declined to do so, ruling on October 28 that the issue did not merit an expedited decision due to the lack of a “controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality.” This means that the issue of presidential immunity from civil lawsuits remains unresolved for now. While other lower court rulings had found that a sitting president cannot be sued, the Supreme Court’s refusal to address the issue definitively could result in further complications in the future.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to rule on the issue highlights the difficulty of envisaging a situation in which the president is answerable to civil lawsuits like any other citizen. Many constitutional scholars and experts have argued both in favor of and against the idea of presidential immunity, and as of yet, there is no clear consensus.
At present, the issue does not impact most citizens directly, but it could have far-reaching implications should the Supreme Court eventually issue a ruling either way. Until such a ruling is made, the issue of presidential immunity from civil lawsuits remains unsettled.
