WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Thursday that a trial in former President Donald Trump's election interference case is unlikely to happen anytime soon, with the justices weighing in on whether certain actions by the president should be prohibited. expressed concern.
The court appears likely to reject President Trump's broad claims of absolute immunity, but could send the case back for further proceedings, further delaying the possibility of a trial before the election. There is sex.
The court is considering a new legal question: whether the former president can be prosecuted for what Trump's lawyers claim were “official acts” that took place before he took office, but much of the focus remains on The question is whether the judge will issue a verdict early and the trial will be held before that. November election.
Most legal experts question Mr. Trump's broader argument that the entire election interference charge should be dismissed based on immunity, so it remains to be seen how protected official acts will be and whether the verdict will be. Equally important will be the court's final decision on how quickly it will be rendered.
The court's three liberal justices appear to be most sympathetic to prosecutors, but the court's conservatives appear to have different views on the extent of presidential immunity, leaving them uncertain about exactly what the court will rule on. is opaque.
Several justices expressed concern about the broader implications for future presidents, and most avoided discussing the specific charges against Trump.
“Suppose an incumbent who loses a closely contested election knows that the real possibility after leaving office is that the president will not be able to retire peacefully, and that the president could be subject to criminal prosecution. “Wouldn't that lead us into a vicious cycle of hostile political opponents that destabilizes our functioning as a democracy?” asked conservative Justice Samuel Alito.
The justices appear to be skeptical of the argument that blanket immunity applies to former presidents, and Judge Amy Coney Barrett, herself a presidential candidate, has questioned whether Trump's lawyers argued that his actions were private acts. He was one of those who focused on public acts.
Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben, arguing on behalf of Special Counsel Jack Smith, said in response to Barrett that the charges could proceed even if the official act was omitted.
The case has drawn considerable scrutiny on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Mr. Trump. The court already ordered Mr. Trump an election-year increase when it ruled last month that Colorado could not remove him from the ballot.
The justices have also faced criticism for their delay in accepting Trump's appeal, which some see as a victory for Trump in itself.
The Supreme Court announced on February 28 that it would hear the case, asking whether a former president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for acts he allegedly engaged in while in office. The government will also consider whether it can be enjoyed, and to what extent. The decision immediately jeopardized the possibility of a pre-election trial.
President Trump took to his social media sites ahead of the hearing Thursday morning to echo arguments in court briefs that refusing presidential immunity would expose him to “coercion” to compel him to comply with demands and risks from his political opponents. I posted a post to. Indictment.
“If the President does not have immunity, he will simply be a 'ceremonial' President with little courage to do what he needs to do for our country,” Trump wrote.
On February 6, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump is not immune from prosecution, stating that “former President Trump became a Trump citizen with the defense of all other criminal defendants,'' and that presidential privilege was granted. He said that he may have been protecting the president through presidential privilege. Even his presidency could no longer protect him from prosecution.
The Federal Court of Appeals held that “the President, who is endowed with a constitutional duty to 'see to the faithful execution of the laws,' is the only official capable of violating these laws. “That would be a striking contradiction,” the federal appeals court ruled.
Under U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's original schedule, Trump's trial was scheduled to begin on March 4, and the jury could have reached a verdict by then. Instead, the first of four criminal charges against Trump to go to trial was an indictment brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that accused Trump of hush money payments. He was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. Until the 2016 election. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The federal indictment, returned by a grand jury in Washington, D.C., in August, consists of four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy to violate rights. was. The Supreme Court was already hearing arguments in a separate case on January 6 that could affect two of Trump's charges related to official obstruction.
According to the indictment, Trump “intentionally made false claims of election fraud in order to obstruct the government's ability to collect, tabulate, and certify the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, thereby overturning the legitimate results.” He is said to have conspired to do so.
The indictment focuses on Trump's involvement in a scheme to submit false election certifications to Congress in hopes of invalidating President Joe Biden's victory. The series of events culminated in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Federal prosecutors, led by special counsel Jack Smith, say Trump's actions amounted to a series of crimes. President Trump said he was simply expressing his concerns that there was fraud in the election, which he said was not based on any evidence. He has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.
Although many of the defendants on January 6th have acknowledged that they were deceived and manipulated or that they lacked the critical thinking skills to recognize the lies about the 2020 election for what they were, President Trump and his lawyers The president insists he truly believes the election was stolen.
Smith, however, argued in court documents that Trump does not have immunity and that the case should go to trial immediately, regardless of whether his actions at the time involved official conduct. .
Trump's lawyers specifically cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that held the president is immune from civil lawsuits if the alleged conduct falls within the “periphery” of official duties. The case was never applied criminally.
Smith's team previously estimated it would take “no more than four to six weeks” to present the case to a jury. Potential jurors were told that the trial “could last approximately three months after jury selection is complete.” There were 88 days left on the trial preparation schedule when the case was put on hold in December, when a federal appeals court agreed to take the case.
Although the timeline — which leaves nearly three months of trial preparation before jury selection begins makes it unlikely a verdict will be reached by Election Day — Chutkan said the case is similar to any other criminal prosecution. proceeding, suggesting that Trump's campaign schedule would have no impact on the court.
