US Supreme Court's move to hear Trump's immunity claim gives him gift of
delay
Send a link to a friend
[March 01, 2024]
By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to reject
Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to undo his
2020 election loss, according to legal experts, but its decision to
spend months on the matter could aid his quest to regain the presidency
by further delaying a monumental criminal trial.
Trump's lawyers have argued that he should be shielded from prosecution
for his effort to reverse President Joe Biden's election victory over
him because he was president when he took those actions, a sweeping
assertion of immunity firmly rejected by lower courts.
But the Supreme Court's decision not to schedule its arguments on the
issue until late April reduces the chances that a trial on election
subversion charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith could be
finished before the Nov. 5 U.S. election. Trump is cruising toward the
Republican nomination to challenge Biden, a Democrat.
Some legal experts criticized the Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative
majority includes three Trump appointees, for undue delay.
"They could have set a more aggressive briefing and argument schedule,
as Smith requested," University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman
said. "The immunity claims are also outlandish. They could have been
rejected on the papers (legal briefs) if they wanted to be the one to
decide it."
"They'll reject his immunity bid," Litman added, but forecast that the
soonest a decision would come is May.
Legal experts said the justices would need to rule by about June 1 to
leave enough time for Trump's trial on the charges to wrap up before
Election Day.
Smith, seeking to avoid trial delays, had asked the justices on Dec. 11
to launch a fast-track review of the immunity claim. Trump asked the
justices to not expedite the review, and on Dec. 22 they did what he
requested, opting to let the matter play out in a lower court rather
than resolving it right away.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Feb. 6
upheld U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's Dec. 1 ruling rejecting the
immunity claim. Trump on Feb. 12 asked the Supreme Court to freeze the
D.C. Circuit ruling. On Feb. 14, Smith asked the justices to reject
Trump's bid to further delay the matter. It took the court two more
weeks before it announced it would hear arguments in the matter, which
it scheduled for the week of April 22.
The trial had been scheduled to start on March 4 before the delays over
the immunity issue. Now no trial date is set.
FOUR PROSECUTIONS
The case is one of four criminal prosecutions Trump faces. A March 25
trial date has been set on charges in state court in New York involving
hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. It
is unclear when the other criminal cases will go to trial.
Trump has pleaded not guilty in all four cases, seeking to portray them
as politically motivated.
"I should not have to go through any fake prosecutions before the
election," Trump wrote on social media on Feb. 19.
[to top of second column]
|
The United States Supreme Court building is seen in Washington,
U.S., February 29, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
A criminal conviction could harm Trump's election chances. In
Reuters/Ipsos opinion polls, a quarter of Republicans and half of
independents said they would not vote for Trump if a jury convicted
him of a felony.
If he is elected and becomes president again next January, he could
order an end to this case and a second brought by Smith concerning
Trump's handling of classified documents - or seek to pardon himself
for any federal convictions.
Republican strategist Ford O'Connell, who worked with Trump during
the 2020 campaign, said of the delays in the trial timeline as the
Supreme Court resolves the immunity matter: "It's hard to overstate
what a victory this is politically for the Trump legal team and for
Donald Trump."
"This is a great benefit to Trump in terms of the timeline of these
cases, and how they may interact with the election, particularly in
the fall," O'Connell said.
SLOWING THINGS DOWN
University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade, a former
senior federal prosecutor appointed by President Barack Obama, said
that a time frame for the election subversion trial "is manageable
as long as the Supreme Court acts promptly, and remains mindful of
the public's right to a speedy trial."
McQuade added that "it seems likely that the court will uphold the
D.C. Circuit ruling against Trump."
"I think that Trump's arguments are pretty thin," added Georgetown
University law professor Erica Hashimoto.
Chutkan has promised to give Trump about 90 days to prepare for
trial once the case returns to her courtroom, with a trial expected
to last six to eight weeks. For a verdict to come before the
election, the trial would need to start by around Sept. 1, McQuade
said.
UCLA School of Law elections expert Richard Hasen said that if the
Supreme Court's ruling comes in late June, "it is not at all clear
that there could be a trial before the election."
"I'm also skeptical the judge would make Trump go to trial if he's
the general election candidate on the Republican side," Hasen added.
Hasen forecast that the Supreme Court "is likely to reject Trump's
immunity argument on the merits."
Delaying the trial gives Trump more time to rally supporters around
his claim that the charges were politically motivated, an assertion
that Reuters/Ipsos polls show is broadly held by Republican voters.
Some experts cite Trump's long-established record of making
strategic use of court delays for legal and political advantage.
Hasen noted that "given the weakness of Trump's position, it's
reasonable to ask whether this is simply an attempt, now more likely
to be successful, to run out the clock."
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Additional reporting by Jason Lange and
Andrew Goudsward; Editing by Will Dunham and Scott Malone)
[© 2024 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.]This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |