The federal interest is that they said the US president is constitutionally immune from prosecution for performing his Constitutional duties. If a state prosecutes a president for performing his Constitutional duties, they have violated the US Constitution and SCOTUS is who has the final decision on that.
Think of how SCOTUS decision Roe V Wade said there was a Constitutional right of bodily autonomy, and when states passed abortion bans when Roe was the law of the land the laws just didn’t take effect, and the states could not arrest doctors for performing abortions. States can’t violate the US Constitution.
(In this instance arguing the election interference was Constitutionally protected would be a huge stretch I’m not saying he WILL get off on those charges but if SCOTUS wanted to they could make it so)
The federal interest is that they said the US president is constitutionally immune from prosecution for performing his Constitutional duties. If a state prosecutes a president for performing his Constitutional duties, they have violated the US Constitution and SCOTUS is who has the final decision on that.
Think of how SCOTUS decision Roe V Wade said there was a Constitutional right of bodily autonomy, and when states passed abortion bans when Roe was the law of the land the laws just didn’t take effect, and the states could not arrest doctors for performing abortions. States can’t violate the US Constitution.
(In this instance arguing the election interference was Constitutionally protected would be a huge stretch I’m not saying he WILL get off on those charges but if SCOTUS wanted to they could make it so)