Supreme Court Declines to Expedite Review in Trump Election Interference Case

32

The Supreme Court announced on Friday its decision not to expedite the consideration of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request regarding former President Donald Trump’s potential prosecution for attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

This decision represents a tactical victory for Trump and his legal team, who have consistently sought to delay the legal proceedings against him while he prepares for a 2024 presidential bid. This move by the court prevents an immediate, definitive resolution regarding Trump’s claim of immunity, introducing uncertainty about whether the high-profile trial will proceed as planned on March 4.

The responsibility to decide on this matter now falls to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This court has indicated its readiness to expedite its deliberation. Special Counsel Smith had previously expressed concern that even a swift decision by the appellate court might not reach the Supreme Court for a final review before their summer recess.

Smith had urged the Supreme Court to step in directly, emphasizing the significant public interest in resolving this matter promptly. His request to bypass the appellate court was described as “extraordinary,” highlighting the prosecutorial urgency to avoid potential delays in Trump’s trial, which could extend beyond the upcoming presidential election.

The justices denied Smith’s request with a brief order and, as per their standard practice, did not provide an explanation for their decision.

With the Supreme Court currently not intervening, further appeals are expected, potentially causing more delays. If the appeals court, scheduled to hear arguments on January 9, dismisses Trump’s claims of immunity, it opens the possibility for Trump to seek Supreme Court involvement.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has temporarily halted the case while Trump asserts his immunity claim. However, Chutkan has suggested that the March trial date could be maintained if the case quickly returns to her court.

Chutkan had previously dismissed arguments from Trump’s team that a former president cannot face prosecution for actions taken within the scope of official duties.

In a recent ruling, Chutkan stated, “No special exemptions exist for former presidents in terms of federal criminal liability. A defendant can be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal activities carried out while in office.”

Reacting to Friday’s development, Trump reiterated his belief in presidential immunity and expressed eagerness for the appellate court hearing.

The Supreme Court, which includes three Trump appointees, has multiple Trump-related cases on its docket.

Trump’s legal team intends to challenge a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that prohibits him from appearing on the state’s ballot, under the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, which bars individuals from office if they have participated in insurrection against the Constitution.

Additionally, the court is set to review a case involving charges of obstruction of an official proceeding against Trump and over 300 of his supporters in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach.

In the current immunity case, Smith sought to convince the justices to address the matter directly, bypassing the appeals court process.

Prosecutors stressed the critical democratic implications of the case, emphasizing the need for the Supreme Court to swiftly resolve Trump’s immunity claims and allow the trial to proceed without delay.

Despite months of signaling their intention to eventually bring the immunity issue before the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers advised the justices to avoid rushing their decision, citing the complexity and sensitivity of presidential immunity from prosecution for official actions.

The Justice Department policy prevents indicting a sitting president, but no such restriction exists for a former president. Trump’s legal team argues that he should not face charges for actions performed in his presidential capacity, a position prosecutors strongly contest.

Trump is accused of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, leading to the Capitol riot, a charge he denies.

The Supreme Court has the capacity to respond swiftly once the appeals court makes its ruling. Historically, the court has expedited cases of great national significance, as seen during the Watergate scandal and the 2000 presidential election decision.

Apart from the Washington case, Trump faces several legal challenges, including charges related to classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, allegations of election interference in Georgia, and a New York case involving a payment to a porn actress.

Lindsay Whitehurst, a correspondent from Big Big News in Washington, contributed to this report.

Note: The headline has been corrected to clarify that it was the prosecutor’s request, not Trump, that was rejected.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Trump Supreme Court Case

More about Trump Supreme Court Case

• Supreme Court’s Decision on Trump Case
• Overview of Trump’s Legal Challenges
• Trump and the 2020 Election Controversy
• Timeline of Trump’s Election Subversion Case
• Analysis of Supreme Court’s Role in Trump’s Cases
• Trump’s 2024 Presidential Campaign and Legal Issues
• Legal Implications of Supreme Court’s Decision
• Background on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• Trump’s Immunity Claims and Legal Arguments
• Historical Precedents in Presidential Legal Cases