Ohio Attorney General Urges Supreme Court To Consider Presidential Immunity For Trump

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has offered his perspective on a crucial U.S. Supreme Court case revolving around presidential immunity and the former president, Donald Trump.

Yost, along with attorneys general from Wyoming and Alaska, filed an amicus brief on Tuesday in the case of Trump v. United States. This court filing provides advice and information from parties with a vested interest in the outcome. The brief supports Trump’s argument that he should be granted presidential immunity from criminal charges connected to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

According to a news release on Tuesday by Yost, it was highlighted that the founders of the country recognized the importance of providing a level of immunity to the president in order for them to effectively carry out their duties and responsibilities. However, it was emphasized that this immunity is not absolute, but rather has certain limitations.

Which Trump court case is this?

In August 2023, Trump faced four indictments for his actions on January 6, 2021.

    • Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
    • Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
    • Obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
    • Conspiracy against rights.

The question before the court is whether Trump has presidential immunity for his actions on Jan. 6. Trump argues that he cannot be prosecuted for official acts as president.


What did Yost argue?

Yost proposed a two-part legal test for the court to determine the applicability of presidential immunity.

When determining the extent of a president’s actions, the primary factor to consider is how closely these actions align with the powers granted to the president under the Constitution.

If the situation is urgent, the president would need to take action as a second consideration.

According to the brief submitted by the attorneys general, the determination of whether a President is immune from a criminal charge in this particular scenario will be based on factual findings that assess the necessity of the President’s actions.

When will the case be decided?

The court has scheduled oral arguments to be heard during the week of April 22.

Reference Article

Articles: 2832

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *