The Supreme Court on Friday said it will not fast-track consideration of Donald Trump’s claim that he has immunity from prosecution for actions he took as president, a question crucial to whether he can be put on trial for plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The court’s one-sentence order, from which there were no noted dissents, means a federal appeals court in Washington will be the first to review a district judge’s ruling earlier this month rejecting Trump’s claim of immunity. Arguments are scheduled for Jan. 9.

Special counsel Jack Smith had asked the justices to short-circuit the normal appellate process and quickly settle the question of presidential criminal immunity, which the Supreme Court previously has not been called upon to resolve. He said public interest required intervention now, so the federal election-obstruction trial of Trump — the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — could proceed as scheduled in March.

Archive

    • breakfastmtn@lemmy.caOP
      46·
      11 months ago

      I think this is probably not true because:

      1. they agreed to expedite this process/decision.

      2. This appears to be unanimous. The liberal justices have no interest in helping Trump.

      3. Jack Smith was trying to skip a step (the appeals court), and they were basically like ‘no, do this the usual way.’

      4. the appeals court already agreed to expedite the appeal if their decision went this way.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        27·
        11 months ago

        The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has already shown that it is going to move very quickly on this issue. If that had not been the case, SCOTUS may have decided to take it up. As it stands, SCOTUS wants to stay out of all this as much as possible; there is no ruling they can make on anything Trump that won’t result in a huge public uproar, possibly leading to violence, possibly leading to violence against the justices themselves.

        SCOTUS can’t rule that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any actions they take while holding office. Not for love of democracy, not for self-preservation, not to protect any corruption status quo. They would need to rule against Trump, and that means violence.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        No lie it is.

        They already declined to intervene in Trump’s stolen documents case. No comments, no dissent, the judicial version of, “LOL no.” I believe there was an election related case against Trump they declined to hear. Can’t find it for all the noise about this case.

        Oh, and they refused to hear Alabama’s voting district case. So for all 3, they said let the lower court’s ruling stand.

        • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          3·
          11 months ago

          Oh, and they refused to hear Alabama’s voting district case. So for all 3, they said let the lower court’s ruling stand.

          Smith asked for this case to skip the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and go straight to the Supreme Court. Not granting that request isn’t the same as denying an appeal.

    • Trollception@lemmy.world
      1·
      11 months ago

      Problem is if it’s left up to the voters then Trump will likely win. I’ve been following the polls on fivethirtyeight and it doesn’t look good for Biden at least for the popular vote. Not sure how it will play out with the electoral colleges and how state votes are counted.