CBS News
How Trump’s immunity case got to the Supreme Court: A full timeline
Washington — The Supreme Court is set to convene Thursday to consider whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for what he says were official acts taken while he occupied the White House.
The outcome of the dispute, known as Trump v. U.S., will have ramifications for the case brought against the former president in Washington, D.C., by special counsel Jack Smith, who alleges Trump engaged in an unlawful scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
A ruling in Trump’s favor would bring the prosecution to an end. But if Smith prevails and Trump’s claims of immunity are rejected, proceedings in the case, which have been paused for months, would pick back up, although it’s unclear how quickly it would go to trial.
A victory for the special counsel would significantly raise the stakes of the 2024 election for Trump, since he could order the Justice Department to drop the case if reelected to the White House.
The origins of Trump’s immunity claim date back to last fall, when his attorneys first raised the issue. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected by the end of June. Here’s how the case arrived before the justices:
2023
Aug. 1: Trump is indicted on four counts in federal court in Washington. Prosecutors allege he and others orchestrated a scheme to keep him in power despite losing the 2020 presidential election.
Aug. 3: Trump pleads not guilty to all four counts before a federal magistrate judge.
Roberto Schmidt / Getty Images
Oct. 5: Trump’s attorneys file a motion to dismiss the charges against him based on presidential immunity. In their 52-page filing, they argue that he is entitled to absolute immunity, in part to ensure that presidents can serve “unhesitatingly, without fear” of future prosecution by political opponents for decisions they dislike.
Defense attorneys argue that the conduct alleged in the indictment lies “at the heart” of Trump’s official responsibilities as president.
Oct. 19: Prosecutors with Smith’s team oppose Trump’s bid to toss out the indictment on immunity grounds. In a 54-page filing, they tell the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that neither the Constitution nor Supreme Court precedent supports the sweeping immunity he asserted.
They argue that a former president may be investigated, indicted, tried and, if convicted, punished for conduct committed while in office. They also refute Trump’s characterization of his efforts to subvert the transfer of presidential power, writing that he took those actions in his capacity as a candidate for elective office.
Trump, the special counsel writes, allegedly acted deceitfully or corruptly to secure a personal benefit to himself as a presidential candidate, “not to carry out constitutional obligations entrusted to the presidency.”
Dec. 1: U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denies Trump’s request to dismiss the charges based on presidential immunity, finding that the Constitution doesn’t support his contention that he is entitled to sweeping protection from prosecution for official acts.
“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” Chutkan writes in her decision. “Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.”
Trump, she continues, may face federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction and punishment for any criminal acts taken while in office.
Dec. 7: Trump appeals Chutkan’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and asks her to pause proceedings pending the appellate court’s review.
Dec. 11: Smith asks the Supreme Court to bypass the D.C. Circuit and swiftly decide whether Trump can be criminally charged for allegedly illegal acts committed while in the White House.
The special counsel tells the justices that it’s of “imperative public importance” that the Supreme Court resolve Trump’s claims of immunity and, if they are rejected, for his trial to proceed “as promptly as possible.”
Smith asks the high court to intervene in the case before the D.C. Circuit can hear arguments on whether Trump is entitled to sweeping immunity and issue a decision.
Dec. 13: Chutkan grants Trump’s request to pause the proceedings in the case, but says that a limited gag order and an order governing the use of “sensitive” information in the case remain in force.
Dec. 22: The Supreme Court denies Smith’s bid to fast-track the immunity case and leap-frog the D.C. Circuit, leaving the dispute before the appeals court.
2024
Jan. 9: A panel of three judges on the D.C. Circuit hears arguments on whether Trump is shielded from criminal prosecution. The judges assigned to the case are Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan.
Henderson was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by President George H.W. Bush. Childs and Pan were tapped by President Biden.
During arguments, the judges question the limits of Trump’s claims of broad immunity, including whether a president who orders the military to assassinate a political rival would be shielded from prosecution.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Feb. 6: The three-judge panel unanimously rules that Trump is not entitled to broad immunity from prosecution.
“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the judges said in their decision. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
The judges rule that Trump is not entitled to presidential immunity for “assertedly official acts,” and write that they “cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results.”
“It would be a striking paradox if the president, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity,” the panel writes.
The judges give Trump until Feb. 12 to ask the Supreme Court to pause their decision.
Feb. 12: Trump seeks emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking the justices to pause the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.
In a filing, the former president’s lawyers write that without immunity from criminal charges, “the presidency as we know it will cease to exist.”
They accuse the special counsel of seeking to force Trump into a lengthy criminal trial at the height of the presidential campaign, which would keep him off the campaign trail.
Feb. 14: Smith urges the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s request for emergency relief and allow the D.C. Circuit’s ruling to stand. Doing so would clear the way for the trial in the 2020 election case to proceed.
But the special counsel tells the justices that if they believe Trump’s immunity claim warrants its review, they should take up the case on an expedited basis. He suggests the court set a schedule that would allow for oral arguments in March and an opinion shortly after.
Smith writes that if Trump is granted absolute immunity, it would upend understandings about presidential accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining democracy and the rule of law.”
Feb. 28: The Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Trump is entitled to presidential immunity from prosecution for acts allegedly committed while in office.
Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images
The unsigned order specifies the question that the justices will consider: “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
It also sets arguments for the week of April 22. The court indicates that proceedings in the case will remain on hold until it issues a decision, expected by the end of June.
March 19: In his opening brief to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers urge the justices to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s decision and find that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution.
“From 1789 to 2023, no former, or current, president faced criminal charges for his official acts — for good reason,” Trump’s lawyers told the court. “The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office.”
They argue that allowing a former president to be criminally charged would impact future office-holders.
“Once our nation crosses this Rubicon, every future president will face de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and will be harassed by politically motivated prosecution after leaving office, over his most sensitive and controversial decisions,” Sauer wrote. “That bleak scenario would result in a weak and hollow President, and would thus be ruinous for the American political system as a whole.”
April 8: The special counsel files his brief to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s alleged scheme to subvert the transfer of presidential power was outside the duties of his office.
“No presidential power at issue in this case entitles the president to claim immunity from the general federal criminal prohibitions supporting the charges: fraud against the United States, obstruction of official proceedings, and denial of the right to vote,” Smith and his team write. “The president’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them.”
The special counsel and his fellow prosecutors tell the justices that Trump’s alleged attempt to stay in power after the 2020 election “frustrates core constitutional provisions that protect democracy.”
They also write that even if the Supreme Court finds immunity can be extended to a former president’s “official acts,” Trump could still be prosecuted since the allegations against him deal with a “private scheme with private actors to achieve a private end: petitioner’s effort to remain in power by fraud.”
April 25: The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Trump v. United States. D. John Sauer is set to argue on behalf of Trump and Michael Dreeben will appear for the special counsel.
CBS News
Sen. Thom Tillis says “the scope” of Helene damage in North Carolina “is more like Katrina”
As recovery missions and repairs continue in North Carolina more than a week after Hurricane Helene carved a path of devastation through the western part of the state, the state’s Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called for more resources to bolster the relief effort and likened the damage to Hurricane Katrina’s mark on Louisiana in 2005.
“This is unlike anything that we’ve seen in this state,” Tillis told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Sunday morning. “We need increased attention. We need to continue to increase the surge of federal resources.”
Hurricane Helene ripped through the Southeast U.S. after making landfall in Florida on Sept. 26 as a powerful Category 4 storm. Helene brought heavy rain and catastrophic flooding to communities across multiple states, including Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, with North Carolina bearing the brunt of the destruction. Officials previously said hundreds of roads in western North Carolina were washed out and inaccessible after the storm, hampering rescue operations, and several highways were blocked by mudslides.
Tillis said Sunday that most roads in the region likely remained closed due to flooding and debris. Water, electricity and other essential services still have not been fully restored.
“The scope of this storm is more like Katrina,” he said. “It may look like a flood to the outside observer, but again, this is a landmass roughly the size of the state of Massachusetts, with damage distributed throughout. We have to get maximum resources on the ground immediately to finish rescue operations.”
Hurricane Katrina left more than 1,000 people dead after it slammed into Louisiana’s Gulf Coast in August 2005, flooding neighborhoods and destroying infrastructure in and around New Orleans as well as in parts of the surrounding region. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the mainland U.S. in the last 50 years, and the costliest storm on record.
The death toll from Hurricane Helene is at least 229, CBS News has confirmed, with at least 116 of those deaths reported in North Carolina alone. Officials have said they expect the death toll to continue to rise as recovery efforts were ongoing, and a spokesperson for the police department in Asheville told CBS News Friday their officers were “actively working 75 cases of missing persons.”
On Saturday, the U.S. Department of Transportation released $100 million in emergency funds for North Carolina to rebuild the roads and bridges damaged by the hurricane.
“We are providing this initial round of funding so there’s no delay getting roads repaired and reopened, and re-establishing critical routes,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement. “The Biden-Harris administration will be with North Carolina every step of the way, and today’s emergency funding to help get transportation networks back up and running safely will be followed by additional federal resources.”
President Biden previously announced that the federal government would cover “100%” of costs for debris removal and emergency protective measures in North Carolina for six months.
With North Carolina leaders working with a number of relief agencies to deal with the aftermath of the storm, Tillis urged federal officials to ramp up the resources being funneled into the state’s hardest-hit areas. The senator also addressed a surge in conspiracy theories and misinformation about the Biden Administration’s disaster response, which have been fueled by Republican political figures like former President Donald Trump.
Trump falsely claimed that Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent in the November presidential election, were diverting funds from Federal Emergency Management Agency that would support the relief effort in North Carolina toward initiatives for immigrants. He also said baselessly that the administration and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, were withholding funds because many communities that were hit hardest are predominantly Republican. Elon Musk has shared false claims about FEMA, too.
“Many of these observations are not even from people on the ground,” Tillis said of those claims. “I believe that we have to stay focused on rescue operations, recovery operations, clearing operations, and we don’t need any of these distractions on the ground. It’s at the expense of the hard-working first responders and people that are just trying to recover their lives.”
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
The following is a transcript of an interview with Catherine Russell, UNICEF executive director, on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” that aired on Oct. 6, 2024.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Catherine Russell is the executive director of UNICEF, the UN agency that helps disadvantaged children around the world. Good morning to you. I know you’re deeply concerned, you’ve said, by what is happening right now in Lebanon, 1000s of children on the streets or in shelters because they’ve had to flee without supplies. What does the speed of this escalation do to your ability to help these kids?
CATHERINE RUSSELL: Well, I think the speed and intensity is shocking, honestly, and it does make it challenging for us. However, we have been in Lebanon. We’re on the ground there. We are doing a lot of work, moving in tons of supplies, medical supplies and other supplies. But I think the challenge is that the population, about a million people, have been displaced, and so that kind of movement makes it very challenging to try to provide the services that people need. But I think, you know, we’re there. We’re doing it. Obviously we need more resources. It’s always a challenge. But I think I feel confident at this point that we can, we can meet the needs, but it takes, it’s taking a tremendous amount of effort on our part to do it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The UN Refugee chief, one of your colleagues, said today that the strikes on Lebanon had violated international humanitarian law. Is that affecting your workers?
CATHERINE RUSSELL: You know, it’s, I would say, for humanitarian workers, the last year has been so challenging. I mean, we have lost a record number of humanitarian workers around the world. There are so many conflicts going on in so many places where they’re so vulnerable. And of course, you know, as the head of this, my operation, I worry constantly about our teams there and our staff there. And I think UNHCR, who you’re referring to, they did lose two staff people in Lebanon. And that’s a crushing thing to happen, because these people are so amazing, and they risk their lives every day to try to help children and desperate people. And to see that happen is really crushing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: UNRWA told CBS that they are heading down the track, to quote, a man made disaster again in Gaza. I was told the food deliveries have been continuously declining since May. There are law and order challenges, that’s part of the problem. 1 million people didn’t get food in August. That number now is 1.4 million. How bad is the malnutrition and the hygiene and the mental health of kids there?
CATHERINE RUSSELL: It’s all terrible. And I think if you look at Gaza really through the eyes of a child, it’s a hellscape for children. They’ve been moved multiple times. They know people, their family members, who’ve been killed, they’ve been injured. They don’t have enough food to eat, they don’t have enough water, they don’t have clean water. I think these children, you know, you mentioned it earlier, they’re so traumatized by what’s happening. And I think the notion that we can even, even if we can get more supplies in there, the trauma that these children are suffering is going to have lifetime and even post generational challenges for them, because it’s just so profound. And it’s been almost a year of this. They really-it’s hard to imagine what that’s like for a child. You know, you can’t really imagine anything comparable for them. And I think they have no security, they have no certainty in life. They’re just really suffering every single day.
MARGARET BRENNAN : But you were able to get polio shots into kids. How come you can’t get them food?
CATHERINE RUSSELL 3:16
Yeah, it’s such a good question. You know, we, I mean, first I would say it’s terrible that we had to go in and do polio vaccinations. Right. There hadn’t been polio in Gaza for years, decades, really. And of course, we started to see some cases of it. That’s because they’re living in such terrible conditions, the water is dirty and all the rest of it. So we were able, with other UN agencies, to go in and vaccinate children for polio- vaccinated well over half a million children. I mean, 500 million children. It was a, it was a real success story. And I think the important point about that is it shows that if the authorities there help us make it possible for us to do our work, we can do it. We can definitely do it, but we need more support so that there’s security. As you say, there is not security right now. it’s very dangerous to move things around. The roads are a mess. We get stuck at checkpoints. I mean, it’s just one logistical problem after another. And I think the polio lesson is we can do it, and they can help us do it if they choose to.
MARGARET BRENNAN: If there’s coordinated international pressure to allow for it. Moving away from the Middle East and to Africa. I know Sudan is an issue you have been trying to put on the world’s radar for some time. Nearly 4 million children under five are acutely malnourished, and there’s a cholera outbreak. Can you break through there, another war zone?
CATHERINE RUSSELL: Sudan is, is the most alarming place for me at the moment because of the scale of it. Right? It is the largest displacement crisis in the world and the largest hunger problem in the world. We have already declared that there is famine in part of Sudan. Right? Children are grossly malnourished, and children are on the verge of famine in many places where it hasn’t already been declared. There’s also incredible violence. Children are moving constantly. They’re very vulnerable. I was there, you know, several months ago, and the stories I heard were heartbreaking, of what children had seen and experienced. Of this 19 million children who live in Sudan, 17 million have been out of school for over a year.
MARGARET BRENNAN: 17 out of 19 million children are out of school?
CATHERINE RUSSELL: Are out of school, yes, for over a year, right? What kind of life is this? They can’t get medical supplies. It’s really challenging for them. But I will say this, I met with some children in a camp that UNICEF supports, and the amazing thing was, they could still talk to me about the future,their hope for the future. Which I, you know, I’m always struck by this, that children are children everywhere, and even in the most desperate places they can have hope. But the international community has got to do better, and in Sudan, everyone has got to put pressure on the parties to stop the fighting and to stop making lives so miserable for children.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Catherine Russell, thank you.
CATHERINE RUSSELL: Thanks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be back in a moment.
