当代表前总统唐纳德·特朗普的律师周四在美国最高法院前约翰·绍尔本有机会向政府检察官迈克尔·德雷本提出反驳，但却没有通过。
“没有别的了，法官大人，”他说。
特朗普声称，在白宫期间，他享有与官方行为相关的刑事起诉的“绝对豁免权”,而失去了五分钟不受干扰的时间，这是一个明显的指标，表明他的法律团队认为情况如何。
大多数法官在近三个小时的历史性辩论中显然，我并没有完全接受特朗普对行政权力的主张——但最终，这可能并不重要。
甚至在特朗普诉美国一案的木槌落下之前，绍尔实际上已经放弃了这一前所未有的主张，他首先承认，如果一名前总统已经被众议院弹劾并被参议院定罪，他实际上可能因官方行为而被起诉。
后来，绍尔承认，个人或私人行为——与办公室无关，但在办公室犯下的——也可以成为公平的游戏。
"你承认私人行为不能获得豁免?"艾米·科尼·巴雷特法官一度问道。
“我们有，”绍尔回答。
剩下的是一场有争议的辩论，即总统的哪些官方行为不受司法和检察审查，哪些不受司法和检察审查，以及如何做出这一决定。
更多:外卖:最高法院在历史性案件中权衡特朗普的豁免权主张
大部分时间里，高等法院的成员提出各种假设，有时是挑衅性的假设关于总统如何行动不管新的刑事责任准则是什么。
他会发动政变吗?暗杀对手?而且，假设没有豁免权，一个过去的总司令会像富兰克林·罗斯福一样因为在二战期间采取的某些有争议的行动而被起诉吗?未来的领导人会受到恶意指控的困扰吗?
“我们正在为这个时代写一个规则，”大法官尼尔·戈萨奇说。
布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官对此表示赞同:“这一案件对总统职位、总统职位的未来、国家的未来都有着巨大的影响。”
更多:总统会发动政变吗?特朗普最高法院豁免听证会的9个关键时刻
法院的大多数保守派似乎准备推翻上诉法院对特朗普豁免权的明确拒绝，这将立即为他的联邦选举颠覆审判扫清道路，这些审判涉及与2020年大选和他继续留任有关的四项重罪，即阴谋、阻挠和侵犯民权。他否认所有不当行为。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨说:“我担心的是……上诉法院没有集中考虑我们在谈论什么法案或什么文件。”。
法院的最终决定可能意味着1月6日针对特朗普的案件范围将会缩小，这是基于大多数人对什么样的官方行为是起诉的公平游戏所设计的任何规则。
这幅艺术家素描描绘了2024年4月25日(星期四)在华盛顿辩论期间，从左起依次为助理大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特、助理大法官尼尔·戈萨奇、助理大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔、助理大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、
“我们如何定义什么是官方行为?“克拉伦斯·托马斯法官一度感到疑惑。
“我们看动机吗，总统行动的动机?”戈萨奇沉思道。
塞缪尔·阿利托法官假设:“如果总统从司法部长那里得到建议，认为某些事情是合法的，这是绝对的辩护吗?”
但是自由派中的大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔指出，“有些东西从根本上就是邪恶的，因此必须加以防范。”她提出了一个最著名的假设，关于总统动用军队打击腐败对手的假设，特朗普的律师认为这种假设可以“很好地”作为官方行为受到保护。
一个阐明总统豁免权和总统权力界限的里程碑式的决定多快会出台?周四没有迹象表明会很快;相反，悬而未决的意见的历史重要性表明法官们会花时间起草这份意见-可能会拖到6月份，也就是他们任期的最后一段时间。
对于特朗普来说，他的政治抱负和法律战略在很大程度上依赖于法庭上的拖延战术，时间紧迫提供了巨大的优势。
无论做出什么决定，下级法院都需要更多时间来理清如何适用。
“正常程序，”巴雷特法官指出，“如果我们认定存在一些官方行为豁免，我们会将案件发回(下级法院)重审，然后在下文中解决。”
它似乎比以往更不可能特朗普试图推翻2020年大选结果的联邦审判将在选民11月前往投票站在他和乔·拜登总统之间再次选择之前开始-更不用说决定了。
但对于那些希望看到特朗普在法庭上承担责任的人来说，这个机会可能不会完全失去。
在一次值得注意的交流中，巴雷特有条不紊地要求特朗普的律师绍尔澄清他在起诉书中的某些指控是否是私人行为，这些指控不会受到豁免权的保护。绍尔说，特朗普继续对此案提出异议，但承认这些被指控的行为似乎都是个人行为，而不是官方行为。
那一点在后来的辩论中又出现了。
“即使我们在这里做出决定——一条你不喜欢的规则……在政府看来，起诉书中有足够的指控属于私人行为范畴，应该允许案件继续进行?”代表特别顾问杰克·史密斯的法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克森问德雷本。
“正确，”他回答道。
“在普通情况下，不会仅仅因为某些行为据称已经免疫而停止……如果还有其他行为没有免疫，案件会继续进行吗?”杰克逊继续说道。
他回答说:“没错。”
Trump has good day arguing immunity at Supreme Court, but that doesn't nix Jan. 6 prosecution: ANALYSIS
When the attorney representing former President Donald Trumpbefore the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursdayhad a chance to offer a rebuttal to government prosecutor Michael Dreeben, John Sauer took a pass.
"Nothing further, your honor," he said.
The forfeiture of five minutes of uninterrupted time to drive home Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution related to official acts while in the White House was a telling indicator of how his legal team feels it fared.
A majority of justicesduring the nearly three hours of historic argumentsclearly didn't buy the full sweep of Trump's assertion of executive power -- but in the end, that may not matter much.
Even before the gavel dropped in Trump v. United States, Sauer had effectively surrendered that unprecedented claim, conceding first that a former president could, in fact, be prosecuted for an official act if he had already been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for it.
And later, Sauer granted that personal or private conduct -- unrelated to the office but committed while in office -- could also be fair game.
"You concede that private acts don't get immunity?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked at one point.
"We do," Sauer replied.
What was left was a contentious debate over what types of official acts by a president are protected from judicial and prosecutorial review, which are not and how to make that determination.
Much of the time saw the members of the high court posing various -- sometimes provocative -- hypotheticalsabout how a president could actunder whatever the new guidelines of criminal liability will be.
Could he stage a coup? Assassinate a rival? And, assuming there was no immunity, could a past commander in chief have been prosecuted, like Franklin D. Roosevelt for certain controversial actions taken during World War II? Could a future leader be hounded by the specter of bad faith charges?
"We're writing a rule for the ages," Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed: "This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country."
MORE: Could a president stage a coup? And 9 more key moments from Trump's Supreme Court immunity hearing
Most of the court's conservatives appeared ready to toss out an appeals court's categorical rejection of immunity for Trump, which would have immediately cleared the way for his federal election subversion trial on four felony counts of conspiracy, obstruction and civil rights violation pertaining to the 2020 election and his push to remain in office. He denies all wrongdoing.
"What concerns me is … the court of appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we're talking about or what documents we're talking about," said Chief Justice John Roberts.
The resulting decision from the court will likely mean a narrowing of the Jan. 6 case against Trump based on whatever rule the majority devises for what official acts are fair game for prosecution.
This artist sketch depicts, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
"How do we define what an official act is?" Justice Clarence Thomas wondered at one point.
"Do we look at motives, the president's motives for his actions?" mused Gorsuch.
Justice Samuel Alito posited: "If the president gets advice from the attorney general that something is lawful, is that an absolute defense?"
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, among the liberals, noted that "there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against." She offered one of the most notable hypotheticals, about a president using the military to target a corrupt rival, which Trump's attorney contended could "well be" protected as official conduct.
How soon will a landmark decision articulating the boundaries of presidential immunity and presidential power come down? There was no indication on Thursday it would be quick; instead, the historical gravity of the pending opinion suggested the justices would take their time in drafting it -- possibly well into June, in the twilight of their term.
For Trump, whose political ambitions and legal strategy have leaned heavily on delay tactics in court, the ticking clock offers a huge advantage.
Whatever decision comes down, a lower court will need more time to sort out how it applies.
"The normal process," Justice Barrett pointed out, "would be for us to remand [to a lower court] if we decided that there were some official acts immunity and to let that be sorted out below."
Itappears less likely than everthat a federal trial for Trump over his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election will commence -- much less be decided -- before voters head to the polls in November to choose, again, between him and President Joe Biden.
But for those looking to see Trump held accountable in court, that opportunity may not be entirely lost.
In one notable exchange, Barrett methodically pressed for clarity from Sauer, Trump's attorney, on whether certain allegations in his indictment were private conduct, which would not be shielded by immunity. Sauer said Trump continues to dispute the case but acknowledged the alleged acts all appeared personal, not official.
That point arose again, later in the arguments.
"Even if we decide here something -- a rule that's not the rule that you prefer… there's sufficient allegations in the indictment in the government's view that fall into the private acts bucket that the case should be allowed to proceed?" Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Dreeben, representing special counsel Jack Smith.
"Correct," he replied.
"In an ordinary case, it wouldn't be stopped just because some of the acts are allegedly immunized … if there are other acts that aren't, the case would go forward?" Jackson continued.
He answered: "That is right."
