What to listen for during Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump and presidential immunity

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday over whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

It's a historic day for the court, with the justices having an opportunity to decide once and for all whether former presidents can be prosecuted for official acts they take while in the White House.

But between a decades-old court case about Richard Nixon, and an obscure constitutional provision about presidential impeachments, there are likely to be some unfamiliar concepts and terms thrown about.

Here are some tips to help follow everything:

The court marshal will bang the gavel at 10 a.m. EDT and Chief Justice John Roberts will announce the start of arguments in Donald J. Trump vs. United States of America, as the case is called.

The session easily could last two hours or more.

There are no cameras in the courtroom, but since the pandemic the court has livestreamed its argument sessions. Listen live on apnews.com/live/trump-supreme-court-arguments-updates or the court’s website at www.supremecourt.gov. C-SPAN also will carry the arguments at www.c-span.org.

Expect to hear talk about the impeachment process and the relationship, if any, to criminal prosecution.

Central to Trump's immunity argument is the claim that only a former president who was impeached and convicted by the Senate can be criminally prosecuted. Trump was impeached over his efforts to undo the election in the run-up to the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But he was acquitted, not convicted, by the Senate in 2021.

Trump's lawyers cite as backup for their argument a provision of the Constitution known as the Impeachment Judgment Clause that says an officeholder convicted by the Senate shall nevertheless be “liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment” in court.

Prosecutors say the Trump team is misreading the clause and that conviction in the Senate is not a prerequisite for a courtroom prosecution.

There's going to be plentiful discussion about Nixon but not necessarily for the reasons one might think.

Trump's team has repeatedly drawn attention to a 1982 case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, in which the Supreme Court held that a former president cannot be sued in civil cases for their actions while in office. The case concerned the firing of an Air Force analyst, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, who testified before Congress about cost overruns in the production of a transport plane.

Fitzgerald's lawsuit against Nixon, president at the time of the 1970 termination, was unsuccessful, with Justice Lewis Powell writing for the court that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for acts that fall within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties.

Importantly, that decision did not shield presidents from criminal liability, though Trump's team says the same analysis should apply.

Special counsel Jack Smith's team is also likely to bring up a separate Supreme Court decision involving Nixon that they say bolsters their case — a 1974 opinion that forced the president to turn over incriminating White House tapes for use in the prosecutions of his top aides.

Prosecutors have also noted that Nixon accepted rather than declined a subsequent pardon from President Gerald Ford — a recognition by the men, they say, “that a former President was subject to prosecution.”

The justices are known to love presenting hypothetical scenarios to lawyers as a way of testing the outer limits of their arguments. Expect that practice to be on full display Thursday as the court assesses whether former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity.

Already, Trump's lawyers have warned that if the prosecution is permitted to go forward, it would open the floodgates to criminal charges against other presidents, such as for authorizing a drone strike that kills a U.S. citizen or for giving false information to Congress that leads the country into war.

In a memorable moment during arguments in January before a federal appeals court, a judge asked a Trump lawyer whether a president who ordered a Navy SEAL to assassinate a political rival could be prosecuted.

Look for Smith's team to try to draw a sharp distinction between acts that it says are quintessential exercises of presidential power — such as ordering a drone strike during war — to the acts that Trump is accused of in this case, such as participating in a scheme to organize fake electors in battleground states. Those acts, prosecutors say, are personal acts and not presidential ones.

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

FILE - Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, on Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The core issue being debated before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2024, boils down to this: Whether a former president is immune from prosecution for actions taken while in office — and, if so, what is the extent of the immunity? (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

FILE - The Supreme Court of the United States is seen in Washington, March 26, 2024. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week with profound legal and political consequences: whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a federal case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, File)

FILE - President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally in Washington, on Jan. 6, 2021. The Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether Trump is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — A 16-year-old boy who was shot dead by police after stabbing a man in the Australian west coast city of Perth had been in a deradicalization program but had no links to an alleged network of teen extremists in the east coast city of Sydney, authorities said.

The boy had participated in the federally funded Countering Violent Extremism program for two years but had no criminal record, Western Australia Police Minister Paul Papalia said Monday.

“The challenge we confront with people like the 16-year-old in this incident is that he’s known to hold views that are dangerous and potentially he could be radicalized,” Papalia said. “But the problem with individuals like this is they can act at short notice without warning and be very dangerous.”

On the potential for the boy to have been radicalized, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was concerned by social media pushing extreme positions.

“It’s a dynamic that isn’t just an issue for government. It’s an issue for our entire society, whether it be violent extremism, misogyny and violence against women. It is an issue that of course I’m concerned about,” Albanese told reporters.

Western Australia Police Commissioner Col Blanch said the boy had phoned police late Saturday saying he was about to commit “acts of violence” but did not say where. Minutes later, a member of the public reported to police seeing the boy with a knife in a hardware store parking lot.

Three police officers responded, one armed with a gun and two with stun guns. Police deployed both stun guns but they failed to incapacitate the boy before he was killed by a single gunshot, Blanch said.

The stabbing victim is a man in his 30s who was wounded in his back. He was in serious but stable condition at a Perth hospital, police said.

Blanch said members of the local Muslim community had raised concerns with police about the boy’s behavior before he was killed on Saturday.

The boy had said in a text message to associates, "I am going on the path of jihad tonight for the sake of Allah," Australian Associated Press reported, prompting several to alert police.

Police said the stabbing had the hallmarks of a terrorist attack but have not declared it as such. Factors that can influence that decision include whether state police need federal resources, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organization domestic spy agency.

Blanch said the Western Australia Police Force investigation did not need additional federal resources and he was confidence the situation was different from the one in Sydney.

“We are dealing with complex issues, both mental health issues but also online radicalization issues,” Blanch said Sunday. “But we believe he very much is acting alone and we do not have concerns at this time that there is an ongoing network or other concerns that might have been seen over in Sydney."

Western Australia Premier Roger Cook said his government and the state education department had been aware of concerns at the boy's school about his behavior. Cook didn't directly respond to reports that several boys at Rossmoyne Senior High School, the prestigious government school he attended, were attempting to radicalize classmates.

“I'll leave that up the the Education Department to clarify,” Cook told reporters. “This young man was harboring some extremist thoughts, which is the reason why he was part of the Countering Violent Extremism program.”

Amanda Spencer-Teo, a parent of a Rossmoyne student, said multiple “red flags” had been raised about the behavior of some students.

“Parents have been raising this with the school for some time,” Spencer-Teo, who will be an opposition party candidate at state elections next year, told The Australian newspaper. “The school and the department have failed to provide information to those concerned parents.”

In the stabbings at a Sydney church on April 15, New South Wales Police Commissioner Karen Webb declared the stabbings of an Assyrian Orthodox bishop and priest as a terrorist act within hours. The boy arrested was later charged with committing a terrorist act. In the subsequent investigation, six more teenagers were charged with terror-related offenses.

Police alleged all seven were part of a network that “adhered to a religiously motivated, violent extremist ideology.”

Some Muslim leaders have criticized Australian police for declaring the church stabbing a terrorist act but not a rampage two days earlier in a Sydney shopping mall in which six people were killed and a dozen wounded.

The 40-year-old attacker, who was shot dead by police, had a history of schizophrenia and most of the victims he targeted were women. Police have yet to reveal the man’s motive.

In this image from a video, Western Australian Premier Roger Cook speaks at a press conference in Perth, Australia Sunday, May 5, 2024. A 16-year-old boy armed with a knife was shot dead by police after he stabbed a man in the Australian west coast city of Perth, officials said Sunday. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation via AP)

This image from a video, shows a parking lot where an incident occurred in Perth, Australia Sunday, May 5, 2024. A 16-year-old boy armed with a knife was shot dead by police after he stabbed a man in the Australian west coast city of Perth, officials said Sunday. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation via AP)

In this image from a video, Western Australian Police Commissioner Col Blanch speaks at a press conference in Perth, Australia Sunday, May 5, 2024. A 16-year-old boy armed with a knife was shot dead by police after he stabbed a man in the Australian west coast city of Perth, officials said Sunday. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation via AP)