The Supreme Court’s epic failure in dealing with Trump’s cases

Donald Trump’s “hush money/election interference” trial continues in state court, implicitly foreshadowing an epic and tragic failure at the U.S. Supreme Court. This state’s case is certainly not one that Americans needed to consider and decide before the 2024 presidential election.

of Four criminal cases against Trump This compares to election interference cases in other states that have named Jack Smith as an unindicted co-conspirator, including Jack Smith for orchestrating the January 6 attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election. The lawsuit accusing him is the most important.

It is imperative for the constitutional government to resolve this case before the 2024 presidential elections for two compelling reasons. First, the American people have a right to know all the facts about Trump’s involvement in the coup attempt before they vote. Second, if the case is delayed until after the election, President Trump, if he wins, could dismiss the case, suppress evidence of his alleged criminal conduct, and escape forever from the consequences of his actions.

Thus, the Supreme Court’s tragic failure is clear. The Supreme Court systematically prevented swift and timely resolution of that important case.

1. Instead of hearing President Trump’s claim of “absolute” immunity in December 2023, Proceedings in lower appellate courts are postponed.

2. In exchange for affirming the superior unanimous opinion of the lower courts denying the claim for immunity, we agreed to hear yet another appeal on this issue.

3. Instead of finding that there was no good reason to continue the district court’s stay of pretrial preparations, the district court ordered a continued stay of those proceedings.

4. Instead of setting a short briefing schedule to expedite the hearing of the release claim (recognizing that the parties have already been fully briefed on the issue), the filing of briefs requires two additional briefings. We set a loose schedule of giving months.

5. Instead of setting an early date for the hearing, the date was set as late as possible, on the very last day of the court period.

6. Instead of focusing on the facts of the case, oral argument obscured the real issues and pretended that the case presented an imaginary blanket immunity problem. This is a red herring that potentially allows for the possibility of rejecting the final decision and justifying remand. and cause further delays.

7. Rather than handing down a judgment immediately after the arguments, the court confirmed that it may not hand down a judgment until late June or even July.

The court could easily have decided on the discharge request as early as January or February, giving the district court enough time to complete pretrial proceedings and begin the trial by May or June. Instead, it succeeded in delaying the case for countless months, making a pre-election trial increasingly unlikely, if not virtually impossible.

The court’s determination to delay litigation is especially evident when comparing its actions with those in the second case Trump faced in connection with the January 6 riot. there, Challenge to the 14th Amendment Regarding Mr. Trump’s eligibility for federal office: A quick decision was in Trump’s interest. By making it impossible for any state to use the Fourteenth Amendment to remove him from early primary and subsequent general election ballots. The case presented open, difficult, and substantively contested constitutional claims, but the court quickly ruled in Trump’s favor. In stark contrast, the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled against delay and speed in the Jan. 6 Jack Smith case, where delay, not speed, served President Trump’s interests.

Furthermore, as a constitutional matter, there is not even a genuine issue of immunity in this case, so any delay was completely unnecessary. From criminal charges, whether historical, textual, structural, originalistic, or theoretical, that the president attempted to overturn the results of a legitimate presidential election in order to remain in office and remain in office illegally. There is no plausible constitutional basis for assuming immunity. Power.

Despite President Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of “absolute” immunity, the Jack Smith case presents a much more narrow and highly specific immunity issue that is less difficult and more controversial. There’s not even room. The president of the United States cannot be immune from criminal prosecution for attempting to overturn a legitimate election and illegally seize control of the nation’s government. The court’s delaying tactics are therefore based on a feigned credence to constitutional illusions.

If the court rules on this case, it will, of course, reject Mr. Trump’s claims. The only meaningful outcome of the court’s systematic foot-dragging, then, is the inevitable conclusion that Trump was trying to help avoid a trial during his presidential campaign. In effect, the court agreed to grant Trump de facto absolute immunity until the 2024 election. It is an epic constitutional tragedy.

Edward Purcell is the Joseph Solomon Distinguished Professor at New York Law School and author of his latest book, Antonin Scalia and American Constitutionalism: The Historical Significance of a Judicial Icon.