The Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will hear arguments and issue a decision on whether former President Trump is immune from prosecution for the Jan. 6 mob attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Even if the judges ultimately rule against Trump, their decision to intervene now will delay his trial for several months, casting doubt on whether the criminal case could reach a jury before the fall as the election campaign accelerates.
The justices said they will hear arguments the week of April 22.
They said they will decide the following question: whether (and if so, to what extent) a former president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct allegedly involving official acts during his term.
The judges said nothing more.
It's still unclear whether some of the justices believe Trump has a strong claim to immunity for his alleged official acts as president, or whether they are simply following the court's normal rules in resolving an important constitutional issue.
Many legal experts have scoffed at Trump's claim of absolute immunity for his actions as president.
In a court hearing, Trump's lawyer argued that the former president could be protected from prosecution even if he had told a Navy SEAL team to kill one of his political rivals.
Special prosecutor Jack Smith said Trump is accused of crimes that “strike at the heart of our democracy. “A president’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law.”
Trump was indicted by a grand jury in Washington on four felonies arising from his efforts (some public, some behind closed doors) to prevent Joe Biden from being certified as the winner of the 2020 election.
Trying to block a trial, Trump's lawyers argued that a former president is protected from criminal charges for his “official acts” while in office.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan disagreed, saying the Constitution does not provide absolute immunity to former presidents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld her sentence with a 3-0 ruling.
On February 12, Trump's lawyers filed an emergency appeal urging the justices to keep the case on hold while his appeals were considered. They said Trump's “claim that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts presents a novel, complex and consequential issue that deserves careful consideration on appeal. …If a president's prosecution is confirmed, such prosecutions will be repeated and become increasingly common, giving rise to destructive cycles of recrimination.”
They noted that one of the high court's rules requires granting review in a case in which an appeals court “has decided an important question of federal law that has not been resolved, but should be, by this court.” [Supreme] Court.”
In December, the special counsel cited that rule in urging the justices to hear Trump's case immediately. It is “of imperative public importance that [his] Immunity claims will be resolved by” the high court, Smith said at the time.
But the justices rejected his appeal for a fast-track ruling and sent the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which later ruled against Trump.
This month, the special counsel partially reversed course and said the justices should decline to rule on Trump's appeal, clearing the way for the Jan. 6 trial to begin this spring. Granting the review now “threatens to thwart the public interest in a quick and fair verdict,” he said.
Alternatively, he said the justices should hear the case in March and decide it on an accelerated schedule.
The special counsel did not mention the election campaign or Trump's status as a favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination.
But if the trial is delayed until late summer, the special counsel could run afoul of the Justice Department's policy of avoiding prosecutions that could affect an election.
Two years ago, Atty. General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum declaring that “partisan politics should play no role in the decisions of…prosecutors regarding any criminal investigation or prosecution. … Prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements … or any other action in any matter or case in order to affect any election. Such purpose, or the appearance of such purpose, is inconsistent with the [Justice] The mission of the department.”
Writing on the Lawfare blog, Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith criticized the special counsel's “rush to trial” and said Smith could run afoul of the Justice Department's policy of avoiding election interference.
“Opinion polls show that Trump will be harmed and Joe Biden will benefit if Biden's Justice Department convicts Trump of a crime before the election,” said Goldsmith, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.
Lawyers for Alabama and 21 other Republican-led states urged the court to move slowly in considering Trump's appeals. They said their “states represent millions of Americans, many of whom fear that the timing of this prosecution has been calculated to silence or imprison President Biden's political rival.”
They said the court should not “give the prosecution the green light to proceed at breakneck speed and put the apparent front-runner” for the Republican presidential nomination “on trial in the run-up to the election.”
But a group of former Republican officials, including former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, said maintaining Trump's immunity could raise the prospect of a future military coup.
“The last thing that would serve the nation or the presidency would be to encourage presidents who lose reelection to commit federal criminal statute violations… to prevent executive power from being granted” to their legitimate successor, the former officials wrote in a friend. -court brief.
“If that qualified for absolute immunity, the precedent would encourage a future president to violate federal criminal statutes by deploying the military and armed federal agents in an effort to alter the results of a presidential election.”
