The Supreme Court will not hear a case on Trump’s immunity defense for the time being
The Supreme Court declined Friday to rule for the time being on whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. The case will continue to be heard at an appeal court and will most likely return to the Supreme Court in the coming months.
The decision to delay hearing on a central issue in the case was a major practical victory for Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have consistently sought to delay criminal cases against him across the country.
Jack Smith, the special prosecutor prosecuting Trump, has done just that the judges asked to act with extraordinary speed, bypassing a federal appeals court.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office, or constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when impeached but not convicted before criminal proceedings begins,” Mr. Smith wrote.
A quick decision by the justices was essential, Mr. Smith wrote, because Mr. Trump’s appeal of a trial judge’s ruling rejecting his claim to immunity puts the criminal trial on hold. The proceedings were scheduled to begin March 4 in Federal District Court in Washington.
Any significant delays could push the trial into the heart of the 2024 campaign season or push it past the election, when Mr. Trump could order charges dropped if he wins the presidency.
“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” Mr. Smith wrote. “This is an extraordinary case.”
The judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, rejected Trump’s sweeping claims that he had “absolute immunity” from the election interference charge because it was based on actions he took while in office. She has since suspended proceedings in the case while an appeal is pending.
Mr Smith, citing the Nixon tapes case, urged the judges to take swift action: “The public importance of the issues, the threat to the scheduled trial date and the need for a speedy and definitive resolution of the defendant’s immunity claims in favor of this case. the court’s expedited review at this time.”
Mr. Trump’s lawyers took the opposite position, asking the justices to follow the usual procedure of letting the appeals court hear the case first.
“Interest does not have to be automatic speed,” Mr. Trump’s letter said. “The opposite is usually true. New, complex, sensitive and historic issues – such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions – require more careful deliberation, not less.”
Mr. Smith called that approach misleading.
“The public interest in a speedy resolution of this matter favors an immediate, final decision by this court,” he wrote. “The allegations here are of the utmost importance. This case involves – for the first time in our country’s history – criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office.”
“And not just any actions: alleged acts to keep oneself in power by frustrating the constitutionally mandated process for certifying the lawful winner of an election,” Mr. Smith added.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers countered that the case, and the desire to resolve it quickly, was motivated by political considerations.
“He confuses the ‘public interest’ with the clear party interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a months-long criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign in which he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration. ” the letter said.
The two sides rely on precedents pointing in opposite directions, with both sides involving President Richard M. Nixon.
In 1974, op United States against Nixonthe court ruled that Nixon, then still in office, had to comply with a subpoena requesting recordings of his conversations in the Oval Office, dismissing his claims of executive privilege.
“Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, alone, can in all circumstances sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential prerogative of immunity from judicial proceedings,” wrote Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. .
Eight years later, in Nixon vs. Fitzgeraldthe court voted 5-4 in Nixon’s favor in a civil case brought by an Air Force analyst who said he was fired in 1970 in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. By the time the court took action, Nixon had already been out of office for several years.
“Given the special character of the constitutional office and functions of the President,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote. for the majority, “we believe it is appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from liability for damages for actions within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the country. his official responsibility.”
The Supreme Court will soon face another question arising from the aftermath of the 2020 election. On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump is ineligible to vote in that state’s primary ballot, under a provision in the constitution that prohibits officials involved in insurrection from holding office. Mr. Trump has said he will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.