Supreme Court Declines to Fast-Track Trump's Legal Battle, Leaves Decision to Court of Appeals
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has decided not to expedite the legal battle involving former President Donald Trump. This decision implies that the Court of Appeals will handle the case first, prolonging the proceedings before it reaches the Supreme Court. The intriguing aspect of this decision is that the Court did not provide any justification for its denial of the petition.
Legal experts explain that the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and it is uncommon for them to grant an appeal before a judgment is made in the court of appeals. However, they acknowledge that this case holds unique circumstances, as the delay in the process could work in Trump's favor. If he wins the presidency in November and regains control of the White House, a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, thus providing incentive for Trump to push for a prolonged legal process.
Another factor in this case pertains to the recent stay or pause in the proceedings of Judge Chutkin's case in the D.C. court. Questions arise regarding Judge Chutkin's jurisdiction during the appeals process and whether it would extend to the Supreme Court. These uncertainties further complicate the timeline and outcome of the case.
During the arguments, Special Counselor Jack Smith referred to a Watergate-era case that involved the Supreme Court bypassing the appeals court to expedite a case related to President Richard Nixon's claims of presidential privilege. Smith made a similar argument, emphasizing the gravity of the current case and urging the Supreme Court to consider it promptly. However, these appeals were ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court.
While legal pundits offer differing opinions, some would have accepted the case. However, it should be noted that an expedited appeal requires the agreement of four justices during the Supreme Court conference, and currently, the D.C. Court of Appeals is scheduled for oral arguments in January. Delays in the Supreme Court hearing could result in the case not being heard until the next term, extensively pushing the timeline even further.
The pressing matter at hand is whether the stay in the proceedings will remain in effect. If so, the case will likely be heard, if at all, during the Supreme Court's next term, creating a significant delay. Smith argued that the Supreme Court should intervene sooner, given the weight of the case and the potential need for appeals, regardless of the outcome at the appellate level.
The appeals argument is set for January 9th, but the exact timeline beyond that remains uncertain. Legal experts predict that it could be several months before the D.C. Court of Appeals issues a decision. Once that occurs, the Supreme Court will then determine whether to accept the case, which would prompt the establishment of a briefing schedule. Overall, this elongated process may extend well into 2024 or even 2025.
This extended timeline holds critical ramifications since it could push the resolution of the case beyond the November election. As the charges against former President Trump in this case are of significant importance, many people look to the election's outcome as a crucial moment in its trajectory.
