For nearly three hours on Thursday, the Supreme Court weighed whether former presidents are immune from prosecution and what exactly it means if they are.
Its answer will determine whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election.
Whatever the decision, each justice indicated that it would shape US democracy for years to come.
“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
The case, heard in a special session one day after the court’s last scheduled argument of this term, hinges on Mr Trump’s claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges for actions committed while in office.
According to Mr Trump, this immunity shields him from criminal charges brought by US Special Counsel Jack Smith that he allegedly attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
That trial will remain on hold until the court issues its decision, expected in June.
The justices’ pointed questions, levelled at both sides, indicated division within the bench, and suggested a split decision may be likely. That division could also lead to a more complicated decision that would significantly delay any restart of the trial.
Their questions, along with tense exchanges and high-stakes hypothetical scenarios, also showed that both the conservative majority and liberal minority are making the decision with an eye to history. Would total immunity mean a future president was free to use the US military to kill his or her rivals? Or, without it, would presidents leaving office be subject to the whims of individual prosecutors and thrown in jail as part of political vendettas?
