OnPolitics: A ham sandwich? A solar eclipse? Justice Alito has questions

Hey OnPolitics readers! During Supreme Court arguments thick with references to hypothetical murders, military coups and bribery, Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday aimed for the stars – and the deli counter.

Lawyers for Donald Trump have asked the justices to rule that former presidents are immune from prosecution for any official act they commit in office, with a wide definition of what makes for an official act, USA TODAY's Dan Morrison reported. Several justices dug into extreme examples of what might possibly constitute official conduct: Ordering the assassination of political rivals? Military takeovers?

🥪 Alito asked Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben if a former president should be left to the mercy of prosecutors, noting an old saying about grand juries: That the bodies would indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asked them to. Alito asked Dreeben if he knew of a single case in which a federal prosecutor had asked a grand jury to indict a suspect “and the grand jury refused to do so.”

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

✅ Donald Trump is trying to quash federal charges that he conspired to overturn the 2020 election after his bitter loss to President Joe Biden. Without sweeping immunity, a president “will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office,” Trump alleged on Truth Social Sunday.

Read more: Trump at Supreme Court: Ham sandwiches and solar eclipses: Justice Alito has questions

Stay in the know on politics: Sign up for the OnPolitics newsletter

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: A ham sandwich? A solar eclipse? Justice Alito has questions