On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a petition submitted by special counsel Jack Smith. The petition sought an expedited review of a defense argument in one of the two cases that Smith is currently prosecuting against former President Donald Trump. The request for a writ of certiorari before judgment has been denied, as stated in the unsigned order.
A 1982 Supreme Court opinion had established absolute immunity for presidents from civil suits, but as both parties have argued, the bounds of immunity from criminal prosecution have not been defined.
Had the Supreme Court chosen to undertake a review of the presidential immunity defense, it would have effectively determined the final decision regarding President Trump's motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of presidential immunity in the appeals court.
The defense of raising the same argument in multiple cases, including civil cases, has been utilized by the individual on several occasions, although it has not yielded successful outcomes.
The case at hand has been a subject of debate between both parties, who have presented arguments regarding its historical significance. Each side has used this historical significance as evidence to support their respective positions, with one party advocating for expediting the proceedings, while the other argues for a slower pace. During the court briefings, the parties engaged in a debate regarding the manner in which President Trump's defense of presidential immunity was presented.
In a recent development, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan made a decision to reject a motion to dismiss a case on the grounds of presidential immunity. This ruling has now paved the way for President Trump to proceed with legal action in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The request to expedite the appeal was promptly filed by the prosecutors, and the appeals court promptly granted it.
The deadline for President Trump's opening brief is December 23rd, while the prosecutors are required to submit their reply by December 30th.
The first hearing for the case has been set for January 9th. The appeals court has decided to temporarily halt any further proceedings until the Supreme Court takes its final action. The denial by the high court enables the appeal process to proceed.
President Trump asserts that the actions for which he has faced charges were carried out in his official capacity as the President of the United States.
The core of this particular defense revolves around the argument that these official acts are protected by "presidential immunity."
The Supreme Court has established that presidents are granted absolute immunity from civil suits. However, defense attorneys have presented arguments suggesting that allowing presidents to be criminally prosecuted for their actions while in office would have far-reaching consequences.
The prosecutors contended that the current matter under consideration is unrelated to the issue being discussed, asserting that presidential immunity is not applicable in this case. Their argument is based on the premise that President Trump is being charged for offenses committed while he held the position of President.
The pretrial arguments made thus far revolve around a dual framing that lies at the core. Both the prosecutors and the defense have referred to the same set of facts that are publicly available. However, they present contrasting viewpoints on the legality of these facts. While one side contends that the facts were illegal, the other side maintains that they were lawful.
The outcome of this case before trial could potentially be influenced by the high court, as it recently agreed to consider a distinct issue related to the events of January 6th.
The Department of Justice's unconventional approach of charging defendants with corruptly obstructing a "official proceeding" has faced opposition in the form of three petitions filed at the Supreme Court. These petitions seek to challenge the legality and appropriateness of the Department's actions. The original statute is related to evidence tampering, but in Jan. 6 cases it's been used to refer to Congress's counting of the votes.
The impact of this situation extends to approximately 330 cases, one of which involves President Trump. If the Supreme Court determines that this use is inappropriate, it has the potential to significantly complicate President Trump's case. This complication arises from the urgency of prosecutors to expedite the trial within the current term.
A 1982 Supreme Court opinion had established absolute immunity for presidents from civil suits, but as both parties have argued, the bounds of immunity from criminal prosecution have not been defined.
Had the Supreme Court chosen to undertake a review of the presidential immunity defense, it would have effectively determined the final decision regarding President Trump's motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of presidential immunity in the appeals court.
The defense of raising the same argument in multiple cases, including civil cases, has been utilized by the individual on several occasions, although it has not yielded successful outcomes.
The case at hand has been a subject of debate between both parties, who have presented arguments regarding its historical significance. Each side has used this historical significance as evidence to support their respective positions, with one party advocating for expediting the proceedings, while the other argues for a slower pace. During the court briefings, the parties engaged in a debate regarding the manner in which President Trump's defense of presidential immunity was presented.
In a recent development, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan made a decision to reject a motion to dismiss a case on the grounds of presidential immunity. This ruling has now paved the way for President Trump to proceed with legal action in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The request to expedite the appeal was promptly filed by the prosecutors, and the appeals court promptly granted it.
The deadline for President Trump's opening brief is December 23rd, while the prosecutors are required to submit their reply by December 30th.
The first hearing for the case has been set for January 9th. The appeals court has decided to temporarily halt any further proceedings until the Supreme Court takes its final action. The denial by the high court enables the appeal process to proceed.
President Trump asserts that the actions for which he has faced charges were carried out in his official capacity as the President of the United States.
The core of this particular defense revolves around the argument that these official acts are protected by "presidential immunity."
The Supreme Court has established that presidents are granted absolute immunity from civil suits. However, defense attorneys have presented arguments suggesting that allowing presidents to be criminally prosecuted for their actions while in office would have far-reaching consequences.
The prosecutors contended that the current matter under consideration is unrelated to the issue being discussed, asserting that presidential immunity is not applicable in this case. Their argument is based on the premise that President Trump is being charged for offenses committed while he held the position of President.
The pretrial arguments made thus far revolve around a dual framing that lies at the core. Both the prosecutors and the defense have referred to the same set of facts that are publicly available. However, they present contrasting viewpoints on the legality of these facts. While one side contends that the facts were illegal, the other side maintains that they were lawful.
The outcome of this case before trial could potentially be influenced by the high court, as it recently agreed to consider a distinct issue related to the events of January 6th.
The Department of Justice's unconventional approach of charging defendants with corruptly obstructing a "official proceeding" has faced opposition in the form of three petitions filed at the Supreme Court. These petitions seek to challenge the legality and appropriateness of the Department's actions. The original statute is related to evidence tampering, but in Jan. 6 cases it's been used to refer to Congress's counting of the votes.
The impact of this situation extends to approximately 330 cases, one of which involves President Trump. If the Supreme Court determines that this use is inappropriate, it has the potential to significantly complicate President Trump's case. This complication arises from the urgency of prosecutors to expedite the trial within the current term.
