LISTEN: Justice Jackson asks what stops presidents from committing crimes if they’re immune from prosecution

As the nation’s highest court considered former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from prosecution, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Trump attorney D. John Sauer’s underlying assumption that official acts by a sitting president are immune from criminal prosecution while private acts are not.

LISTEN: Supreme Court seems skeptical of Trump’s claim of absolute immunity but case could be delayed further

The president “absolutely is required to follow the law” while carrying out official acts, “but the remedy for that is the question,” Sauer argued.

In Trump v. United States, the former president is arguing that he should be immune from prosecution for official acts in office, in this instance, from actions related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election. A federal grand jury last year indicted Trump on four counts related to these actions, including participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiring to obstruct the certification of the election results.

Jackson asked Sauer “what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country” if presidents are immune from potential penalty for committing crimes while acting in an official capacity.

“If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?” Jackson asked.