The decision by D. John Sauer, a lawyer for Donald Trump, to waive his rebuttal during Supreme Court arguments on the former president's immunity claims has surprised legal analysts.
On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments concerning Trump's claims that presidential immunity should shield him from criminal charges in the federal election interference case brought by Jack Smith, a special counsel at the Department of Justice.
Smith's investigation focused on Trump's actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, and his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, such as creating false slates of pro-Trump electors in states he had lost to Joe Biden. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the case and has accused federal prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes.
Trump's attorneys argued that his actions constituted official presidential acts and that he was raising concerns about the election's legitimacy in his official capacity as president. Prosecutors, however, argued that Trump was acting as a candidate, not the president, at the time.
Several legal analysts, including former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu, expressed surprise that Sauer, who represented Trump during the oral arguments, did not offer a rebuttal to the arguments made by the DOJ.
Newsweek has reached out to Trump's campaign for comment via email.
Wu told Newsweek in an interview Thursday that he thought it was "interesting" that Sauer chose not to give a rebuttal and may have felt like he "already made his points."
"In the questions to the special counsel's lawyer, Trump's side didn't feel like there's anything very dangerous about what happened there. They felt comfortable enough to not say anything at all," he added.
Wu also said Sauer may have "read the justices well enough to feel like further argument might only give more of a target for the liberal justices."
Jonathan Turley, an attorney and a conservative legal analyst, discussed the decision in multiple posts on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
"Wow, Trump counsel just waived rebuttal?" he wrote, adding, "I am not sure why counsel would not want to get added time to answer these questions before the justices."
Steven Mazie, a journalist who covers the Supreme Court for The Economist, wrote on X: "Sauer just waived his rebuttal. What? Never seen this before. He must think he has the votes so <shrug emoji> Not so sure he's right."
Legal experts previously told Newsweek that the justices seemed prepared to send the case back to trial court for additional fact-finding on what constituted an official act versus a private act, but that they did not seem to indicate they would agree that Trump had complete immunity and should not be tried.
The proceedings could lead to further delays of the January 6 case. The trial was originally scheduled to begin on March 4, but Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in its delay. It remains unclear when the trial may begin.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
fairness meter
To Rate This Article
About the writer
Andrew Stanton is a Newsweek weekend reporter based in Maine. His role is reporting on U.S. politics and social issues. ... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
