For those looking for a hidden political hand in what the Supreme Court does, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of Donald Trump’s still-undecided waiver case given its urgency. . Of course, there are non-political explanations why the ruling has not yet been issued. But the reasons that there is something corrupt at the court cannot be ignored.
On February 28, judges agreed when hearing Mr. Trump claim that he was immune from prosecution on charges of conspiring to overthrow the 2020 election. The court scheduled oral arguments in the case for late April. That eight-week period is much quicker than the Supreme Court’s usual briefing process, which typically lasts for at least 10 weeks. But it is significantly longer than the schedule the court established earlier this year in response to a challenge from Colorado after the state removed Mr. Trump from the presidential primary. The court agreed listen to debate on the case just a month after accepting it and making a decision less than a month after debate. Mr. Trump prevailed, 9-0.
It’s been almost two months since the judges heard Lawyers for the former president and the special prosecutor’s office argued for immunity. The court is dominated by conservatives nominated by Republican presidents. Every day that passes further delays a possible trial on charges related to Mr. Trump’s bid to stay in office after losing the 2020 election and his role in the events leading up to the storm. Capitol; Indeed, at this point, even if the court rules that Mr. Trump has limited immunity or no immunity, it is unlikely that a ruling will be made before the election.
The impunity case is not the only major hanging case. About two dozen undecideds were debating even before the April 25 oral argument on Mr. Trump’s immunity. A gun rights case for domestic abusers under restraining orders was argued in November; Cases involving the power of federal agencies and multibillion-dollar settlements for opioid victims were heard in December and January; The court has also yet to decide whether downwind states must cut emissions that affect air quality in downwind states. That case was argued in February.
Court is a busy place, Although the justices are completing rulings at the second slowest pace since the 1946 term, according to to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal. The Court tries to wrap up its business within the period starting from October to the end of June. It is not surprising that cases argued later in the term are decided later, especially especially because in late April, when the immunity case was heard, the court was still working to wrap up cases argued months earlier. April is also one of the court’s busiest months: The justices heard 10 cases.
But these seemingly mundane explanations of the process leave out some details in the case of exemptions. Mr. Trump’s lawyers came up with a series of arguments so outlandish that it didn’t take long to make them. Among them is the upside-down claim that, because the Constitution clearly states that an officer convicted in impeachment proceedings may later face a criminal trial, the Constitution actually require an impeachment conviction precedes any criminal penalty.
That puts things backwards: The Constitution confirms that impeachment is not a prerequisite for criminal prosecution. Yet Mr. Trump’s lawyers continue to maintain an untenable position, to answer the questionthat a president who orders the assassination of a political opponent cannot face criminal charges (short of being impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate).
There is no need to spend weeks explaining why these arguments are wrong.
In 1974, the Watergate special prosecutor turned against President Richard Nixon over his refusal to release Oval Office tapes of his conversations with aides. Nixon argued that he was immune from subpoenas demanding wiretapping. Last year, Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, look how long did that case take from when it was brought to the Supreme Court on May 31 of that year. The justices gave the parties 21 days to file briefs and then 10 days to respond. Oral arguments were held on July 8. Sixteen days later, on July 24, the court issued an 8-0 decision ordering Nixon to turn over the tapes. Chief Justice Warren Burger, Nixon’s nominee to the court, wrote the opinion. Total elapsed time: 54 days. Nixon later resigned.
As of Tuesday, 110 days had passed since the court agreed to hear Trump’s immunity case. And there’s still no decision.
This court has lost the benefit of the doubt for a myriad of reasons, including its willingness to act quickly in cases that favor Republican interests. In addition to the dismissed case, two and a half years ago, the court scheduled a challenge to the Biden administration’s testing or vaccination policy two weeks later The justices decided to give it a hearing and then issued a decision invalidating the policy less than a week later.
In the South Carolina case, which the court decided 6-3 in May, it was not speed but laziness that helped Republicans. Court allow The state continues to use 2021 congressional maps that lower courts have found racially unconstitutional. Both sides in the case asked the court to rule by January 1; when no decision had been made by mid-March, a district court panel command Controversial map will be used in this fall’s election.
In the case of immunity, questions in court is this: “Whether, and if so, to what extent, is a former president entitled to presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts in office? his period.”
In addressing that question, the court could follow the path clearly outlined in other cases and reach a narrow decision. The justices do not need to address anything and everything related to presidential immunity. It would be enough to conclude that whatever the precise limits of presidential immunity are, it does not extend to orchestrating a monthslong effort to overturn the valid results of a presidential election system.
Even if presidents enjoy some immunity from official acts, it is not right to conspire to remain in office while continuing to question the results of an election they clearly lost. is one of them.
Leah Litman is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and host of the podcast “Strict Examination.” She served as a secretary for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The Times is committed to publishing variety of letters to the editor. We want to know what you think about this article or any of our articles. Here are some advice. And here is our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section above Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X And topic.
