The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has given former President Donald Trump an unexpected development in legal proceedings relating to his challenge of the 2020 election results. With no recorded dissents, the highest court in the land refused to expedite review of Trump’s claim of presidential immunity. The official court order clarified the denial of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for certiorari before judgment.
In the past, SCOTUS had granted cert before judgment to allow Trump to proceed with the execution of a prisoner before leaving office. However, in this instance, it found no compelling reasons to expedite the process of prosecuting a former president who allegedly obstructed the peaceful transfer of power.
After Trump appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss on the grounds of presidential immunity, Judge Chutkan suspended all deadlines. The fallout cast uncertainty over the March 4 trial timeline—just ten weeks away. With Judge Aileen Cannon maintaining a stranglehold on the May dockets, it has been deemed virtually impossible for the case to proceed to trial as originally planned.
Trump’s immunity argument is set for the DC Circuit on January 9. His assertion—that he was participating in official presidential duties when he allegedly attempted to convince Mike Pence and Congress to discard valid electoral votes from certain swing states—may find little favor with the presiding panel: Judges Henderson, Childs, and Pan.
The defense’s arguments mirrors those made recently by Mark Meadows, which were resoundingly faulted by none other than ultraconservative Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit. And even in the event the appeals court maintains its previously rapid briefing schedule and finalizes an expeditious ruling, it would likely only return the case to Judge Chutkan by the third week of January.
Once the case is returned, Trump will have 90 days to petition SCOTUS, which could potentially issue a stay of its own. With such significant impediments, it seems increasingly unlikely that the case will proceed through to trial in March.
Former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner suggests the Supreme Court’s decision may not fundamentally impact the case’s timing. The Court could have granted cert and scheduled a briefing timeline that extended through February; this would have definitely postponed the case. Interestingly, the Special Counsel recently enlisted Supreme Court veteran Michael Dreeben, whom Epner praised as “the most highly-experienced criminal appellate litigator in the United States.”
Further details can be found at the District Docket via Court Listener, the Circuit Docket via Court Listener, and the SCOTUS docket.