Meanwhile, special counsel John L. “Jack” Smith counters that the Constitution’s framers, who lived under the rule of British monarchs, never intended to immunize presidents for allegedly criminal acts. And even if the nation’s top executive is entitled to some level of immunity, it should only apply to the office’s core responsibilities, not private acts like the ones Trump is accused of, Smith said.
At oral arguments in April, a majority of the court seemed to agree presidents are entitled to limited, not absolute, immunity, but the justices divided on where to draw the line between protected and unprotected acts.
The case is Trump v. United States, case number 23-939.
Abortion
A pair of consolidated disputes has put the Supreme Court in a position to decide how much access individuals will have to abortion medication and emergency abortion care.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Danco Laboratories LLC have asked the justices to reinstate two post-approval FDA actions that eased restrictions on popular abortion drug mifepristone by allowing non-physicians to prescribe the drug and enabling providers to mail it to patients.
