Some legal experts predicted that special counsel Jack Smith's election-related trial would not take place before the November election after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday over President Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity.
The date of the Supreme Court's decision in this case is unknown. By the end of June or the beginning of July, the court is expected to render all of its rulings.
"The timing of the court's ruling and whether its decision requires additional proceedings in the lower courts—for example, to determine which of the acts alleged in Smith's complaint involve official or private conduct—could complicate Smith's efforts to move the D.C. trial forward before the 2024 election, even if the justices leave open the possibility that Trump can still face criminal charges in some form or another," SCOTUSBlog's Amy Howe wrote on Thursday night.
Furthermore, she said that "the timing of the court's eventual opinion and the resulting trial remains unclear, leaving open the possibility that the court's decision could push Trump's trial beyond the November election" in light of the Supreme Court's hearing on Thursday.
As the presumed Republican contender for president in 2024, President Trump is facing four criminal prosecutions. The Smith case involves an indictment on four counts of attempting to rig the 2020 election before to the Jan. 6, 2021, breach at the U.S. Capitol. He has entered a not guilty plea, arguing that the accusations are politically motivated and intended to harm his prospects of winning the election.
Citing his post-election activities as part of his presidential responsibilities, President Trump is appealing the case on the grounds that he should be exempt from punishment. The prosecution claims he was acting in his own capacity and that it had nothing to do with his official obligations.
While the appeals process is ongoing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington halted the Trump lawsuit. In the event of a reelection, President Trump may choose to pardon himself or choose a new attorney general to dismiss the special counsel's allegations.
"Concerned that a majority of the justices will find some way to stymie the prosecution by, at the very least, putting additional procedural roadblocks before the special prosecutor, Jack Smith," expressed another analyst, Ray Brescia, a law professor at Albany Law School in New York, to Newsweek on Friday. He made his claim without offering any supporting data.
"Those obstacles will postpone the case's trial and most definitely keep it from ending before the election," Mr. Brescia said.
The Los Angeles Times quoted legal writer and professor Harry Litman as saying that after the Supreme Court's hearing, "it is more uncertain than ever" that President Trump will face trial in the case on January 6.
"The crucial issue heading into Thursday's confrontation was whether the court's ruling would allow the trial to continue without further sessions. After the arguments, it appears even less probable," he wrote on Thursday. He also mentioned that he thought several of the judges' questions raised the possibility that it might provide at least some partial immunity as well, which would further weaken Mr. Smith's case.
The date of the Supreme Court's decision in this case is unknown. By the end of June or the beginning of July, the court is expected to render all of its rulings.
"The timing of the court's ruling and whether its decision requires additional proceedings in the lower courts—for example, to determine which of the acts alleged in Smith's complaint involve official or private conduct—could complicate Smith's efforts to move the D.C. trial forward before the 2024 election, even if the justices leave open the possibility that Trump can still face criminal charges in some form or another," SCOTUSBlog's Amy Howe wrote on Thursday night.
Furthermore, she said that "the timing of the court's eventual opinion and the resulting trial remains unclear, leaving open the possibility that the court's decision could push Trump's trial beyond the November election" in light of the Supreme Court's hearing on Thursday.
As the presumed Republican contender for president in 2024, President Trump is facing four criminal prosecutions. The Smith case involves an indictment on four counts of attempting to rig the 2020 election before to the Jan. 6, 2021, breach at the U.S. Capitol. He has entered a not guilty plea, arguing that the accusations are politically motivated and intended to harm his prospects of winning the election.
Citing his post-election activities as part of his presidential responsibilities, President Trump is appealing the case on the grounds that he should be exempt from punishment. The prosecution claims he was acting in his own capacity and that it had nothing to do with his official obligations.
While the appeals process is ongoing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington halted the Trump lawsuit. In the event of a reelection, President Trump may choose to pardon himself or choose a new attorney general to dismiss the special counsel's allegations.
"Concerned that a majority of the justices will find some way to stymie the prosecution by, at the very least, putting additional procedural roadblocks before the special prosecutor, Jack Smith," expressed another analyst, Ray Brescia, a law professor at Albany Law School in New York, to Newsweek on Friday. He made his claim without offering any supporting data.
"Those obstacles will postpone the case's trial and most definitely keep it from ending before the election," Mr. Brescia said.
The Los Angeles Times quoted legal writer and professor Harry Litman as saying that after the Supreme Court's hearing, "it is more uncertain than ever" that President Trump will face trial in the case on January 6.
"The crucial issue heading into Thursday's confrontation was whether the court's ruling would allow the trial to continue without further sessions. After the arguments, it appears even less probable," he wrote on Thursday. He also mentioned that he thought several of the judges' questions raised the possibility that it might provide at least some partial immunity as well, which would further weaken Mr. Smith's case.
