On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the nod to proceed with an appeal connected to former President Donald Trump, who has put forward an immunity claim in connection with the election subversion case propounded by special counsel Jack Smith. The decision adds fervor to the already high-stakes docket and causes a stalling of his federal trial. The justices intend to fast-track the matter for a hearing starting April 22.
Election Subversion Case Amidst Other Legal Challenges
Trump, currently considered the front-runner for the forthcoming Republican presidential nomination, is preparing for another win-or-lose encounter with the apex court. Earlier in the month, the Supreme Court deliberated on a separate case, which raised questions about Trump disqualifying himself from a second-term run under the "insurrection ban" clause of the 14th Amendment. Concurrently, Trump may be amidst his Supreme Court arguments while also standing trial in New York over criminal charges revolving around the alleged falsification of the company's records to cover up hush money payments preceding the 2016 elections. Trump keeps his plea of not guilty in these instances.
A Significant Victory in the Name of Immunity?
With a Wednesday order to withhold a lower court ruling against Trump until the Supreme Court decides, Trump appears to have secured a significant victory. The payoff for the ex-president is twofold - by arguing a case for extensive presidential immunity, he might successfully destabilize the plethora of other legal challenges he faces. Furthermore, the court's order allows him to delay the trial for at least a few weeks.
Unexpected Delays and Document Deadlines
The Supreme Court showed an unexpected delay in announcing how it planned its proceedings, taking almost two weeks to disclose its decision. This deliberative break gave signal to some behind-the-scenes maneuvering. This delay is the second time the justices have swept aside a request from Smith, who previously asked the Supreme Court to pick up the case even before the D.C. Circuit ruled on it. Trump is to file his opening case arguments by March 19, Smith's office will provide their arguments by April 8, and Trump will present his final arguments in written format by April 15.
ALSO READ: US Judiciary Issues New Guidance Tightening Rules on Judge Recusals Due to Financial Interests
Will the Immunity Claim Hold?
In an emergency request filed with the Supreme Court on February 12, Trump asked the justices to deter a lower court ruling that negated his immunity from Smith's election subversion charges. He argued that inherent immunity is necessary to protect future presidents from the threat of criminal charges. Without this safeguard, Trump warned that the "presidency as we know it will cease to exist." His argument, however, found no traction in the lower courts, with a unanimous 57-page opinion from the D.C. Circuit rejecting his immunity plea. Smith and Trump presented conflicting briefs to the Supreme Court on whether to put the D.C. Circuit decision on hold.
Facing the Charges and Future Implications
On February 14, Smith contended that Trump didn't come close to meeting the criterion necessary for putting the trial on hold. As a result of the ongoing grappling with Trump's claims in the appellate court, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan already put off the initial trial date, which was initially marked for March 4. Considering the delays so far, it is improbable that the trial would commence before May.
The apex court's Wednesday agreement to a seemingly narrow question harbors broad implications - whether or not a former president is shielded from criminal prosecution for actions undertaken during the term of office. Trump argues that the concern about post-office criminal charges might make presidents hesitant to act. His indictment in the 2020 election meddling probe, if left to stand, would cast a "chilling effect" on future presidencies, he said.
However, U.S. Circuit Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Florence Pan, and J. Michelle Childs didn't hold back from rejecting Trump's arguments. They strongly affirmed that the charges against Trump are severe and indicated their belief that they can and should be prosecuted. Following the 2020 presidential election, Trump's conduct was deemed unpresidential and a direct attack on American institutions.
All these developments have thrust the court into the heart of the unfolding presidential election, reminiscent of the 2000 elections decided by the Bush v. Gore ruling. This positioning has come about despite the court's tendency to maintain distance from presidential election matters during most of this year's political season.
