gotchanewsdaily.com 
It’s a legal battle that has captured the national spotlight: a fight all the way to the Supreme Court that Trump’s attorneys are waging to try to guarantee the former president’s claim of absolute immunity from a subpoena. It promises to be the high-stakes showdown in which the country’s highest court will weigh in on whether a sitting president can be held accountable for actions taken while in office—I.e., from the start.
Trump has pursued his claim of immunity with regard to a defamation lawsuit filed against him by former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos. Zervos had accused the man of having sexually assaulted her in 2007 and said his denials of that incident during his presidential campaign were defamation. While his legal team is of the view that he is immune from civil suits while serving as a president, Zervos and her legal team also stated that there is nobody above the law, even if he is the president and has to be accounted for. The decision by the Supreme Court to hear Trump’s case takes on very great significance due to several reasons. First and foremost, it will clarify the extent of a president’s immunity from civil lawsuits. No express provision in the Constitution talks about the concept of immunity, but judgments of the Supreme Court prior to that had granted some sort of implied immunity, affirming the fact that a President should be given protection from a series of legal actions during his tenure in order to allow him to perform his duty without disturbances.
This case, however, has the doubt on whether this immunity does, in fact, extend to a president’s actions before taking office. Trump’s alleged conduct came years before he was elected president; the immunity extended to cover that, Zervos says. Should the Supreme Court agree, it would signal it had established a precedent that will leave future presidents exposed to litigation over their pre-presidential conduct. The other dimension that has raised a lot of public interest is the impact this would have on the #MeToo movement. Zervos’ lawsuit was one of several brought to prominence by the “Me Too” movement, which aimed at powerful individuals being held accountable for sexual misconduct. A judgment in her favor would have sent out very strong sentiments that nobody, no matter their position or power, is above the law in sexual assault allegations.
The Supreme Court, of course, is bound to bring controversy with its decision. Trump shifted the composition of the court during his presidency, with three of his appointees now sitting on the bench. Critics note that this might raise a potential conflict of interest as, in essence, a case related to its former boss is coming before the court. But justices are supposed to be objective and maintain their mission in truthfully interpreting the law.
Unfolding the case, to be sure, legal experts and pundits will pick over each and every bit of argument presented. The Supreme Court’s verdict is bound to echo not only down to his case but also in the future of presidential immunity and accountability. This is going to be a moment watched with a lot of attention and interest for partisans on both sides of the political spectrum.
So what could be the output in this legal showdown? One could never know, but one thing is for sure: the Supreme Court decision promises to have major implications. It would set the limits to presidential immunity, create jurisprudence for future cases of accusations against sitting presidents, and it would be sending a message about the importance of accountability, most especially in cases of alleged sexual misconduct.
Whatever the Supreme Court decides, one fact is written in stone: This legal fight is about so much more than Trump and Zervos. But this—this is a test of our legal system. This is a test of our commitment to justice and understanding of the balance of power. This is what it comes down to: the stage is set, the arguments will be made, and the Supreme Court will have the final say.
