I asked ChatGPT how SCOTUS would rule on this case.

Here is Special Counsel Jack Smith's brief filed today with SCOTUS https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/306999/20240408191803801_United%20States%20v.%20Trump%20final%20for%20filing.pdf

I uploaded into ChatGPT-4 and asked how the court would rule. Here's its response:

Analysis of Legal Arguments:

The brief for the United States argues that a former President does not have immunity from federal criminal prosecution for official acts during his presidency. This argument is grounded on several key points:

Constitutional Principles:

The brief argues that claims of absolute criminal immunity for a former President violate established separation-of-powers principles. It asserts that no Article II text or historical precedent conclusively exempts a President from the general application of federal criminal laws.

Historical Precedents:

The brief cites historical instances and opinions, including those of early American statesmen and Supreme Court decisions, to argue that Presidents have always been viewed as subject to the law, post-presidency.

Judicial Precedents:

It differentiates between immunity from civil suits (as established in cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald) and criminal prosecution, arguing that the latter involves a higher public interest that mandates adherence to the law.

Practical Implications:

The brief outlines the various safeguards that exist within the federal prosecution process that protect against frivolous or politically motivated charges, thus reducing the risk to a President’s ability to perform his duties without undue caution.

Consideration of the Supreme Court's Composition:

The current Supreme Court's composition is crucial in analyzing how it might rule. The Court has a conservative majority, which generally emphasizes strict interpretation of the Constitution, historical context, and limited judicial interference in established legal principles unless clearly warranted.

Potential Outcomes

Rejection of Absolute Immunity:

Given the arguments and the conservative nature of the Court, which may favor a literal and historical interpretation of the Constitution, the Court might rule against absolute immunity for a former President concerning criminal acts committed during office. This would align with the principle that no person, including the President, is above the law.

Limited Ruling:

The Court could issue a more narrowly tailored decision that acknowledges some form of temporary immunity during office but does not extend this immunity post-presidency. This would maintain the balance between executive functionality and accountability.

Complete or Broad Immunity:

While less likely given the legal arguments and judicial trends, the Court could decide in favor of broad immunity, potentially altering the landscape of presidential accountability significantly.

Given these considerations, the most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court may rule against absolute criminal immunity for a former President, especially concerning actions that clearly fall outside the typical duties of the presidency and into criminal behavior. This decision would likely emphasize the importance of the rule of law and the limited scope of presidential immunity as historically and constitutionally grounded.