The former president Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether he is exempt from punishment for allegedly trying to rig the 2020 election results. The court has approved his request. "If and to what degree does a former President have presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for behavior claimed to include official activities during his stay in office?" is the question the court will address.
The court ruling granting Trump certiorari on Wednesday states that oral arguments will take place the week of April 22. In addition, the judgment directs the appeal court to postpone Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump until the Supreme Court rules on the issue of immunity.
That inquiry has already caused a delay in the prosecution's previously accelerated timeline. Following a legal back and forth between Smith and Trump's legal team, a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicted Trump on four charges on August 1, 2023. The court then scheduled the trial for March 4, 2024.
District Judge Tanya Chutkan had postponed the trial date prior to the court's ruling today since the matter has been on hold since December. The ruling issued today makes it plain that the prosecution's pre-trial activities must continue to be suspended.
After the announcement, eminent lawyer Jonathan Turley said that even though the Court had not granted a stay, "it has constructively constructed such a stay by scheduling the argument," calling the timing "a blow to Smith." Remember that pre-trial work have to wait for the restoration of the mandate, even in the event that Smith wins.
"The trial court has to go through discovery and other motions even if the Court rules in favor of the government before June," he said. "That would put the trial in conflict with current DOJ regulations by bringing it closer to the November election."
The lower court's precedent-setting ruling said that although a serving president is immune from prosecution, a past president is not, even for activities performed during their term in office. Since the U.S. Senate cleared him of all charges on January 6 after impeaching him for his behavior, Trump has contended that he was immune to prosecution on the basis of double jeopardy.
In the event that the court rules against Smith and the lower court's position, it may concur with Trump that the indictment's actions fall within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties as president and conclude that all pertinent facts fall within that outer perimeter, giving him complete immunity. That would be fatal to Smith's prosecution and other state-level cases involving Trump-related electoral meddling.
Alternatively, the court can decide that presidential immunity only applies in certain circumstances and apply a standard—the "outside perimeter" test, for example—then remand the case with instructions to the trial court to consider each of Trump's acts as detailed in the indictment. The appeals court would then review those decisions once again. It was virtually certain that the Supreme Court would examine those rulings to see if the criteria was used appropriately, delaying the case's final determination until after the elections in November.
The court ruling granting Trump certiorari on Wednesday states that oral arguments will take place the week of April 22. In addition, the judgment directs the appeal court to postpone Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump until the Supreme Court rules on the issue of immunity.
That inquiry has already caused a delay in the prosecution's previously accelerated timeline. Following a legal back and forth between Smith and Trump's legal team, a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicted Trump on four charges on August 1, 2023. The court then scheduled the trial for March 4, 2024.
District Judge Tanya Chutkan had postponed the trial date prior to the court's ruling today since the matter has been on hold since December. The ruling issued today makes it plain that the prosecution's pre-trial activities must continue to be suspended.
After the announcement, eminent lawyer Jonathan Turley said that even though the Court had not granted a stay, "it has constructively constructed such a stay by scheduling the argument," calling the timing "a blow to Smith." Remember that pre-trial work have to wait for the restoration of the mandate, even in the event that Smith wins.
"The trial court has to go through discovery and other motions even if the Court rules in favor of the government before June," he said. "That would put the trial in conflict with current DOJ regulations by bringing it closer to the November election."
The lower court's precedent-setting ruling said that although a serving president is immune from prosecution, a past president is not, even for activities performed during their term in office. Since the U.S. Senate cleared him of all charges on January 6 after impeaching him for his behavior, Trump has contended that he was immune to prosecution on the basis of double jeopardy.
In the event that the court rules against Smith and the lower court's position, it may concur with Trump that the indictment's actions fall within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties as president and conclude that all pertinent facts fall within that outer perimeter, giving him complete immunity. That would be fatal to Smith's prosecution and other state-level cases involving Trump-related electoral meddling.
Alternatively, the court can decide that presidential immunity only applies in certain circumstances and apply a standard—the "outside perimeter" test, for example—then remand the case with instructions to the trial court to consider each of Trump's acts as detailed in the indictment. The appeals court would then review those decisions once again. It was virtually certain that the Supreme Court would examine those rulings to see if the criteria was used appropriately, delaying the case's final determination until after the elections in November.
