Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request from Special Counsel Jack Smith to determine whether former President Donald Trump can face criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election, without awaiting the decision of a federal appeals court. Smith had hoped for an expeditious resolution of the dispute over the claim of immunity by Trump during the ongoing 2023–24 term; however, the legal body issued a brief unsigned order rejecting his request.
No dissenting opinions were noted in the decision, nor did the justices provide any explanation for this. Earlier this year, Trump was indicted in Washington, D.C., and faces four felony charges related to efforts made to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Key to his defense is his claim that actions he took as part of his responsibilities as president should render him immune from prosecution, and, as he was impeached but not convicted in 2021 on charges rising from similar conduct, this should also shield him from prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed these arguments in a ruling made on Dec. 1. Despite this, Trump has lodged an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has scheduled the case for argument on Jan. 9, 2024. Anticipating this, Smith had already approached the Supreme Court with a procedural action known as certiorari before judgment, thus hoping to expedite a resolution of the immunity issue.
Despite being advised to proceed slowly by D.John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, the justices turned down Smith’s petition for review two days later. Precise reasoning for rejecting intervention at this stage is not known, but one possibility is their belief that the D.C. Circuit will move speedily not only in hearing oral argument but also in providing an opinion in the case. This would leave sufficient time for Supreme Court review of the case during its current term as requested by Smith.
The legal ramifications of Trump’s charges are already having an impact on related issues. Earlier this month, the justices agreed to evaluate issues connected to Smith’s attempts to prosecute Trump. In a separate case, the court will also determine if the same federal law central to one of the charges against Trump, which bars the obstruction of an official proceeding, can be used to prosecute participants in the Jan. 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol.
Trump’s lawyers have also signaled their intention to petition the Supreme Court to review a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court barring the Colorado secretary of state from including Trump on the state’s presidential primary ballot. According to the state supreme court, Trump’s suitability for the ballot is ineligible per Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as he has previously sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution while serving in Congress.
Trump’s trial for the Jan. 6 charges is currently due to commence on March 4, 2024. However, the timeline for these proceedings may see changes considering his appeal to the D.C. Circuit and the court’s decision to review the federal obstruction law.