The Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will consider Donald Trump's claim that, as former president, he enjoys immunity from prosecution for alleged crimes related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. By taking up the case and scheduling oral argument for the week of April 22, the court has further complicated the schedule for Trump's trial, which a district judge originally scheduled for March 4.
It is in the national interest that Trump face a jury as soon as possible. Special prosecutor Jack Smith recognized the urgency of the situation when he asked the justices on December 11 to rule quickly on the immunity case, and before the appeals court intervened. The justices recklessly rejected that request on December 22.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments in the immunity case on Jan. 9 and on Feb. 6 issued a lengthy and wise decision eviscerating Trump's outlandish immunity argument. The appeals court concluded that “former President Trump has become a Trump citizen, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
It's understandable that judges want to weigh in for themselves. But they should have granted Smith's request for expedited consideration. Having failed to do so, they should decide to issue their decision as soon as possible after oral argument in April. It would be a deeply unsatisfactory outcome if the court ruled against Trump's immunity claim but did so too late to ensure that a trial could take place (and a jury could weigh in) before the November election.
Further delay by the court would give ominous new meaning to the axiom that justice delayed is justice denied, although in this case it would be the nation that would be denied justice.
