Judging the Justices on the Presidential Immunity Case

To the Editor:

Re “Will the Justices Hold Presidents to Account?,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, April 29):

For someone like me who has been practicing law for more than 60 years, it is depressing to see the Supreme Court floundering around in the weeds of far-fetched hypotheticals, instead of following a basic rule of jurisprudence: Decide the case before you.

When litigants bring their dispute before a court for resolution, their expectation is that the court will reach a decision based on the facts in their case, not on some hypotheticals bearing scant relevance to their situation.

The indictment against Donald Trump includes detailed allegations about his actions in trying to remain in the presidency. Those are the only allegations that the court should be considering in a narrow opinion determining if Mr. Trump has immunity.

In more than 200 years with 44 presidents preceding Mr. Trump, he is the only one ever accused of criminal behavior. Does it even make sense for the court to be so fixated on the next rogue president?

Raphael G. Jacobs
New York

To the Editor:

As a teacher of high school English, I have read many erudite essays of literary analysis that received a grade of F. Those essays were “puff and smoke,” well-written diversions that did not answer the assigned question.

During the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, the question was straightforward: Does former President Donald Trump have immunity from prosecution for his acts to overturn the 2020 election?