The U.S. Supreme Court has consented to decide if former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges alleging conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results as reported by Amy Howe on SCOTUSblog. This decision was communicated via a concise, unsigned order and commands a federal appeals court to keep its greeting dismissing Trump’s immunity claims on hold, an action signaling the hastening of the case for consideration in late April.
Trump was initially arraigned on four counts in August 2023, charges stemming from the investigation of Special Counsel Jack Smith into the infamous January 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The trial was initially set for March 2024, before Judge Tanya Chutkan decided to postpone it pending the resolution of Trump’s immunity claims.
Judge Chutkan had formerly refused Trump’s motion to dismiss these charges based on claimed immunity from prosecution. Trump’s team sought a review of this decision in the Supreme Court in December, a request the justices declined to comply with pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the appeal lodged by Trump.
In an interesting development on February 6, the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld Judge Chutkan’s ruling, rejecting the arguments made by Trump’s defense that a former president cannot be held to account for his actions while in office and that he cannot be prosecuted without a prior impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
The D.C. Circuit subsequently expedited its judgement for Trump’s case, communicating to him that the ruling would be put into effect, and the criminal case would move forward, unless the Supreme Court was asked to intervene by February 12.
By that February 12 deadline, Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene, aiming to secure a hold on the D.C. Circuit’s ruling so as to allot him time for a review petition and possibly a reconsideration by the full D.C. Circuit bench. Trump’s defense stressed the necessity for comprehensive deliberation on the matter, cautioning of a far-reaching fallout of the D.C. Circuit’s decision on future presidential endeavors if the ruling was left to stand.
The Supreme Court called on Special Counsel Smith for a response by February 20, suggesting that the justices did not consider the matter a dire emergency. Nevertheless, Smith, in an early response submitted six days ahead of schedule, exhorted the justices to proceed with Trump’s trial without further delays, emphasizing that the charges levied against Trump were critical to the democratic structure of the nation, and it was in the national interest to have a quick resolution.
Significantly, Smith proposed an alternative to the justices: to treat Trump’s request for a stay as a petition for review, grant it, and then fast-track the case for oral arguments in March, facilitating a swift decision.
Close to two weeks after Trump’s response brief, the justices largely conformed with Smith’s second proposal. Without signing, they agreed to deliberate on the extent of a former president’s immunity from prosecution pertaining to their actions while in office. This decision, they stressed, should not be construed as a reflection of their viewpoint on Trump’s claims.
The apex court also issued instructions to the D.C. Circuit to maintain their ruling on hold until a decision is made by the Supreme Court. Indications suggest that the case will be argued during the week of April 22 during the court’s April argument session, marking the last week in which the court is scheduled to hear arguments for the 2023-2024 term. Each party will have a tight deadline of just under three weeks to submit their briefs.
This is not the only litigation involving the former president in the 2023-2024 term of the Supreme Court. On February 8, they heard his challenge against a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that he could be prevented from appearing on the state ballot due to his involvement in the January 6 attacks. A decision is yet to be issued in this case.