The Washington Post (AP): This week, the Supreme Court is deliberating on a case of significant legal and political gravity: whether former President Donald Trump should be exempt from prosecution in a federal case that accuses him of conspiring to tamper with the outcomes of the 2020 election.
Furthermore, apart from potentially setting an unprecedented precedent regarding the extent of presidential authority, the court’s verdict—whenever it is rendered—will undeniably have a significant impact on the scheduling of a trial for Trump in one of the four criminal prosecutions against the presumptive Republican nominee.
A speedy ruling in favor of the Justice Department might potentially advance the case toward trial in the upcoming autumn. However, in the event that the court requires until late June to reach a decision on the matter, there is a significant increase in the probability that the November presidential election will transpire without a jury ever being presented with the task of determining whether Trump bears criminal liability for endeavors to reverse a defeat he sustained in the weeks preceding the chaotic riot at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
An examination of what lies ahead:
What is the ruling of the court?
An uncomplicated yet legally unverified inquiry pertains to the immunity of former presidents from federal prosecution for their official engagements.
As the inaugural former president to confront criminal charges, Trump’s appeal signifies a momentous occasion in the nation’s history where the Supreme Court has been presented with the task of evaluating this matter.
While policy within the Justice Department explicitly forbids indicting a current president, there is no impediment to the prosecution of a former president. The team led by special counsel Jack Smith asserts that the Founding Fathers never intended for presidents to be exempt from the law, and that the alleged actions of Trump—including his alleged involvement in a scheme to enlist fraudulent voters in battleground states won by President Joe Biden—have no bearing on his official responsibilities.
In contrast, Trump’s attorneys assert that former presidents are granted absolute immunity. They assert that if former presidents are not granted immunity, there is a risk of an overwhelming number of prosecutions, and that the office cannot function effectively if the commander-in-chief must be concerned about criminal charges. Additionally, they cite a prior Supreme Court decision affirming presidents’ immunity from civil liability for official actions and argue that the same standard ought to be applied to criminal cases.
HOW DID THE COURT COMPRISE THIS ISSUE?
In fact, this will be the third case decided by the Supreme Court in the last half-six months.
In October of last year, Trump’s attorneys petitioned the trial judge supervising the case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of presidential immunity.
The judge unequivocally declined Trump’s assertions of absolute immunity, stating in December that the presidency does not grant a “out-of-jail pass” for life.
In February, an appeals court rendered a similar decision, wherein a three-judge panel determined that “former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” for the purposes of this case.
Following an extended period of deliberation, the high court responded to Trump’s appeal by stating that it would examine the matter of “whether and to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct that is alleged to have involved official acts during his tenure in office.”
WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS OF THE COURT?
There are numerous ways in which the justices could reach a verdict in the case. Shortly after the conclusion of the arguments, they will likely convene in private to conduct a preliminary vote on the outcome. If in the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts would be an ideal candidate to adopt the opinion for the court.
They might opt to unequivocally deny Trump’s assertion of immunity, thereby allowing the prosecution to proceed and remanding the case to Chutkan for the purpose of scheduling a trial.
Furthermore, they might overturn the decisions of the lower courts by establishing for the first time that prosecution of former presidents for behavior associated with official acts committed while in office is not permissible. This decision would effectively halt the prosecution’s progress.
There are additional alternatives, such as determining that while former presidents do maintain a degree of immunity for their official conduct, Trump’s actions significantly surpass that threshold, regardless of where that line is delineated.
An additional potential outcome is that the court remands the case to Chutkan, charging him with determining whether the purported actions undertaken by Trump to maintain his presidency qualify as official acts.
A favourable court ruling for Trump should not significantly impact the ongoing hush-money prosecution in New York, due in part to the fact that the latter pertains to conduct that commenced prior to his inauguration as president. Moreover, while Trump’s attorneys have presented the identical defense of immunity in a federal case filed against him in Florida for amassing classified documents, that case pertains to allegations that Trump unlawfully retained the records and obstructed attempts to retrieve them subsequent to his departure from office, not throughout his presidency.
HOW WILL A TRIAL DATE RELIEF BE APPLIED TO?
The extent of consensus among the justices may influence the speed at which the court returns from arguments. Writing unanimity-departing opinions typically requires less time than writing opinions that severely divide the court.
Should the justices render a verdict in favor of the government and against Trump, the case would revert back to Chutkan. In such a scenario, Chutkan would regain the authority to recommence trial preparations and establish a trial date.
A trial would not occur for several months, due in part to Chutkan’s decision to effectively halt the case pending the outcome of Trump’s appeal in December of last year. Additionally, in the event that the case is remanded to her court, she is dedicated to affording sufficient time for both prosecutors and defense attorneys to prepare for examination.
This will result in months-long unresolved legal disputes resurfacing, in addition to unanticipated arguments and court battles that will consume time on the calendar and require further attention.
The protracted duration of the trial, estimated to be several months, would potentially impede progress toward the election should it not commence by August. The government’s case is expected to be resolved within four to six weeks, according to Smith’s team; however, that time frame excludes any potential defense that Trump may present. In addition, jury selection may require weeks.
WHY IS TRUMP DESIRED TO HAVE THE TRIAL DELAYED?
The trial’s schedule, as well as the possibility that Trump will be compelled to appear in a courtroom in Washington during the weeks preceding the election, possess significant political consequences.
Obtaining the Republican nomination and defeating Biden in November, Trump may attempt to appoint a new attorney general to discharge the federal cases brought against him, or he may even request a pardon for himself. However, the legality of such a proposition has yet to be established.
The filing by Smith’s team urging the Supreme Court to decline Trump’s attempt to further delay the case made no mention of the election. However, prosecutors emphasized the case’s “unique national significance” and warned that any further postponement in addressing these allegations could impede the public’s desire for a prompt and equitable verdict.
In contrast, Smith has been accused by Trump of attempting to expedite the trial process for political motives. The attorneys for Trump submitted a filing with the Supreme Court arguing that scheduling the trial “during the height of election season would significantly impede President Trump’s ability to campaign against President Biden—which seems to be the fundamental purpose of the Special Counsel’s persistent demands for an expedition.”
