So there seems to be general feeling of gloom in the media about Trump’s immunity case in the SCOTUS. Specifically a lot of people are saying that, while SCOTUS is unlikely to find for Trump outright and find he is immune, they will return it to the lower court in a way that will ensure that the lower court must then spend a long time dealing with the immunity claim, ruling out a trial in 2024. Which would obviously be SCOTUS handing Trump a win, seeing as his MO with this and all his trials is to delay and delay, until he gets elected again and can kill all the federal cases.
So, other than the well deserved poor reputation of the current SCOTUS with party political issues (not to mention the fact they are hearing this, clearly ridiculous, immunity case at all), what is it that has led so many commentators to decide this is where this is heading? What would the logistics even be of the SCOTUS doing this?
That seems like a different question. I’m not asking what the implications of total immunity are, I’m asking why so many commentators seem to think he won’t be granted immunity but will succeed in getting the case delayed until 2025
From what I’ve seen in any court, you can delay any case with continuances. Even if not, we see things like a hearing that will cover one minor thing then the next date is a few months later. Look at all of the large cases, they last years.
Because the US Supreme Court seems to be specifically dragging its heels and pushing the timing of a trial as far back as possible.
Remember, the SCOTUS waited about as long as possible to agree to hear the case. Then, they scheduled oral arguments for six weeks later (which they did not have to do). Then, they quite possibly will not issue a ruling until the end of June (as late as they can).
IIRC Judge Chutkan already said she would give Trump 90(?) days from the Supreme Court decision before starting the case (assuming the supreme court doesn’t end it) and chances are legal wrangling will extend that time. So…July, August, September. Now we are looking at late September or October before it could conceivably start and, as said with other motions and whatnot Trump’s legal team will almost certainly try, I have not seen a single legal pundit believe there is any hope of a trial, much less a result, before the November election.
This very much looks like SCOTUS helping Trump. Bush v. Gore was decided in four days from when it was filed. The Pentagon Papers was four days after arguments. Watergate tapes…16 days. The SCOTUS can certainly move quickly if they want to and there is no reason to think they could not have done the same here.
Though I don’t think that is what people are saying will happen here. This isn’t a general “defense files lots of paperwork and delay the trial” it seems to be a specific order the SCOTUS can give the lower court that will delay the trial.
IANAL but I do not think such a thing is ever done.
The Supreme Court makes a ruling that says, “This is what the law is on this topic.” Then they (often) send it back to a lower court and tell them to try (or re-try) the case with that law in mind. The supreme court lets the process work however it usually works in the lower court.
That was what I thought but the general opinion seems to be that they will send this back in such a way that will delay the case more than if they simply rule against Trump and send it back (which will has been delayed and will be delayed further whatever they do).
If they point out that the president has immunity, but only for actions carried out in the course of his duties, would that ensure a bunch of delay while the question of what is and is not part of his duties is dealt with pre-trial? I don’t see why that would be the case (deciding that was always gonna be part of the juries duty here)
So here is a example of the kind of analysis I’m talking about:
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready on Thursday to rule that former presidents have some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, a move that could further delay the criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election.
Such a ruling would most likely send the case back to the trial court, ordering it to draw distinctions between official and private conduct
Presidents certainly have some level of immunity. Most government workers do. Police do. Nothing at all new there. But, the immunity is for things they do in pursuance of their duty. You cannot charge a president for murder because he ordered the military somewhere and people died. But, if he shoots some random person on 5th Avenue then sure…because that is not part of his job and he is not immune from such an action.
At least, we hope that is what the supreme court decides.
The lower court will have to decide if Trump’s actions regarding the January 6 riots are within his official duties as president and thus he is immune from (assuming the supreme court doesn’t change anything and the trial proceeds).
Presidents obviously have immunity for their officially stated duties – if I called in a drone strike, I would be charged with murder. This has never been an issue. And, there’s no way that fomenting a riot to disrupt the electoral count is part of his official duties. This should have been laughed out of court immediately, and the lower courts agree with me.
SCOTUS took it to delay the trial. The liberal judges essentially laughed it out of court, and the conservative judges refused to really contemplate the actual issue at hand (Trump’s illegal acts), and instead tried to find some broader issue to rule on. Balls and strikes – yeah, right.
Yeah this is my confusion. All those issues were considered by the lower courts from the get go (and spoiler alert: doing a coup to overturn the legitimate election results is not part of a presidents duties and covered by immunity, duh). Why would SCOTUS saying “the president has immunity but only for acts committed in the course of his duties” then sending it back to the lower court add any extra delay?
So far it has all been about whether Trump can even be prosecuted for the events around Jan. 6.
Assuming the SCOTUS changes nothing (basically saying yeah, Jan 6 stuff is not covered by immunity) then they will only have added in months of delay to the process. Then Trump starts the actual trial.
Though that is not what the various commentators have been saying, e.g. in the article above. SCOTUS have obviously (and IMO in blatantly politicized gimme to the POTUS who appointed them) delayed the trial just by taking the case and very likely ensured there won’t be a verdict by election day.
But they seem to be saying they will send it back the lower court in a way that will ensure even more delay and mean trial won’t even start until 2025. I’m trying to understand what they mean by this.
It goes back to the lower court, which rules that fomenting a riot isn’t an official act of the president. Trump argues that, as president, he defined what was and wasn’t an official act, and appeals this specific ruling to the Supreme Court, which again drags its feet on deciding if they’re even going to take the case, and then dragging their feet in scheduling a hearing, and dragging their feet on issuing a ruling.
So you are saying: by sending it back with an admonishment to consider private vs official actions of the POTUS, SCOTUS will require an additional ruling by that lower court (that, yes, this was not an official action) which will take time and which in turn can be appealed by Trump, dragging it out for ages?
Yeah, pretty much. Someone has to rule on if this was an “official act”, and sending it back to the lower court maximizes the delay on that issue. And it’s a lock that Trump will appeal, because he appeals everything. Delay is his one strategy, and so of course he’s going to use it.