Massive Share Of The U.S. Insists That Presidents Shouldn’t Hold Absolute Legal Immunity


In recent polling done by YouGov and The Economist that targeted adult citizens across the United States, a large majority insisted that no, presidents should not have the kind of sweeping legal immunity for which Trump has been trying to argue across the federal judiciary, including at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump is trying to use the claims of sweeping immunity to shut down a federal criminal case related to his actions after the 2020 presidential election. He insists that his infamous targeting of Joe Biden’s presidential race victory that year was for the benefit of the American people and part of his duties as president, also insisting that the carrying out of such responsibilities should be, as a general rule, protected from even possible prosecution.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which currently has a conservative majority including three members — out of nine — originally nominated by Trump himself, faced intense criticism for agreeing to hear further arguments on the dispute at all, since the move pushed trial off further into the future.

Respondents in the YouGov polling, which was completed May 14, were asked: “In your opinion, should presidents have legal immunity protecting them from being charged for any actions they have taken as President?” Sixty-three percent said “no,” putting them at odds with Trump’s relentless claims, which he characterizes as necessary to safeguarding the institution of the presidency… though that’s a rather authoritarian vision for how it should operate, many have noted.

The nation’s highest court already heard in-person arguments over Trump’s claims of immunity, leaving observers to wait for a final decision — which even if it rejects Trump’s full gamut of claims could still push his trial further into the future if it spurs additional proceedings before a full judicial resolution to what the ex-president claims.