I see Roberts as a problem for Trump in just about any case.
Opinion: In Trump’s immunity case, John Roberts has quite a mess in front of him Throughout Thursday’s marathon oral argument in Trump v. United States, which lasted more than two and a half hours, most of the US Supreme Court’s nine justices provided at least some clue as to how they’re likely to rule on whether the January 6 criminal prosecution against former President Donald Trump can go forward. (Trump has denied any wrongdoing related to this case.)
At its core, the question in the Trump case is relatively straightforward: Can Trump be criminally prosecuted for his alleged role in the events leading up to and on January 6, 2021? Lower courts resoundingly said yes—without getting into the harder question of whether there’s ever a circumstance in which criminal laws can’t be applied to actions by a president. The Supreme Court could have ducked that question too, either by not taking up Trump’s appeal in the first place, or by holding that, whether or not there is ever a case in which a president is immune from criminal prosecution, the January 6 prosecution against Trump can proceed.
Four of the justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — expressed support for different arguments that would each pose serious (if not fatal) obstacles to the closely watched criminal case. Four of the justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson — seemed to support a ruling that would allow most, if not all, of the charges in the January 6 case to go forward. If that holds, the fate of the January 6 prosecution likely rests in the hands of the justice who spoke first and last on Thursday, but who did the least to reveal his views: Chief Justice John Roberts. And he has quite a mess in front of him.
It became clear early in Thursday’s argument that there was little support across the bench for a narrow ruling that would be good for only this case. As Gorsuch put it at one point, the court needs to articulate “a rule for the ages.” Never mind that we’ve never had a criminal indictment of a former president before; the concern seems to be about the need to articulate a forward-looking rule so that future presidents will know when they should be worried about future criminal prosecution, and when they shouldn’t. Once the court articulates that rule, presumably, it would send Trump’s case back to the district court — where Judge Tanya Chutkan would be expected to apply it before proceeding to trial. ..............
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/26/opinions/trump-immunity-supreme-court-roberts-vladeck/index.html
