[ad_1]
In December, a federal appeals court set a lightning-fast press conference schedule when it agreed to hear former President Donald J. requested documents from the defense and prosecution. Consecutive Saturdays during Christmas and New Year holidays.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also moved with unusual alacrity to set up a hearing for arguments on the issue, just one week after all documents were filed. A hearing was scheduled for January 9th. filed, but for a surprisingly short period of time by the standards of the judicial system.
But after apparently sending a clear signal that it intends to quickly resolve this phase of the immunity issue, which is at the heart of both the viability and timing of Trump’s trial on election-subversion charges, the appeals court’s trial The official said: No decision has been made yet.
The impact is already becoming clear. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who oversees the election case, formally withdrew her plan to begin her trial on March 4. She bowed to the reality that by then time had run out to move forward with her case. She said the dispute over Trump’s immunity claim prompted her to set a new date “once the issue is resolved.”
The disconnect between the expectations set by the commission’s early moves to expedite the case and the weeks that have passed without a decision has some laws watching the case closely. It is attracting the attention of experts.
The incident caught the attention of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, who watched with something akin to quiet glee. As the days pass without a verdict, the strategy to postpone the trial until the presidential election is decided intensifies.
“Given how quickly the court moved to explain and argue this appeal, it’s important to note that no decision has been made yet,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in federal courts. That’s surprising.” “This is surprising, both because of how quickly they moved, but also because the case had broader timing considerations: the March 4 trial date and the threat of an impending election.” It’s the right thing to do.”
At this point, what is happening between the members of the commission, which consists of two judges appointed by President Biden and one judge appointed to the bench by President George H.W. It is impossible to gain any real insight into what is happening.
The latter, Justice Karen L. Henderson, has previously opposed expediting immunity appeals and has sided with Mr. Trump in several previous politically charged cases. As the panel’s senior jurist, Judge Henderson has the authority to write an opinion in the case of a majority. And she has no deadline to complete her task.
Professor Vladeck said many in the legal community have speculated about Judge Henderson’s role in the delay, but there are no formal rules preventing the other two judges on the panel from issuing their own decisions. He also pointed out. .
That would be a “violation of judicial decorum,” but Judge Henderson’s colleagues, Judges Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs, could theoretically rule without her, he said. .
One possibility behind the delay is that the committee is stuck on the immunity issue, but all three legal scholars expressed some skepticism about Trump’s claims during a hearing in Washington last month. Considering this, it seems unlikely.
And while the justices agree that Trump does not enjoy immunity from prosecution, they are still trying to reach consensus on how to frame a decision on one of the most important questions of presidential power that courts have considered for years. It is also possible that they are struggling with this.
Professor Vladeck said the panel would benefit solely from a public opinion perspective by reaching a unanimous decision on both reasoning and results. He noted that the benefits of avoiding the appearance of disagreement are likely to be worth “a few more days, maybe even more weeks.”
The appeal process began in early December, with Trump’s lawyers asking the appeals court to reverse Judge Chutkan’s denial of immunity. Judge Chutkan also froze the underlying litigation, jeopardizing the proposed trial start date.
Even if the immunity issue is resolved in the coming weeks, it is unclear how quickly the case will go to trial. Judge Chutkan has scheduled another hearing in court starting April 2 that could last about a week. He also hinted in court papers that he wanted to give Trump’s lawyers time to ensure impartiality. They have the right to prepare for trial.
The timing is also likely to be decided by the Supreme Court, assuming that either side appeals to the judge against the three-judge panel’s ruling.
The Supreme Court could decline the inquiry and uphold the appeals court’s ruling, a move that could be attractive to the justices. They are already embroiled in another politically thorny issue involving Mr. Trump: whether states can disqualify him from voting this year because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. It is.
But if the court takes up the immunity appeal, it will have to make equally important decisions about how to expedite its hearing.
Depending on the judge’s response, the election interference case could be heard in U.S. District Court in Washington as early as April, or postponed until after the election. If that happens and Trump wins, he could ask the Justice Department to drop the charges. Even if the charges remain, proceedings against him could be frozen for as long as he remains in office, under a long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits prosecuting sitting presidents.
Judge Henderson has generally been more willing than some of his appellate court colleagues to rule in Trump’s favor.
In November 2019, she was one of the opponents of an 8-3 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals that Trump’s accounting firm must turn over eight years of Trump’s financial records to Congress.
She was also a member of the committee that ruled in February 2020 that Mr. Trump’s former White House adviser Donald F. McGahn II was exempt from subpoenas for House testimony. A few months later, the Grand Court overturned that decision.
And in June 2020, Judge Henderson was part of a panel that ordered a district court judge to immediately dismiss Trump’s lawsuit against former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. That would have thwarted the district judge’s plan to scrutinize how the Trump-era Justice Department sought to dismiss the case even though Flynn had pleaded guilty. The appellate court also overturned the decision, ignoring her objections.
In August 2022, Judge Henderson joined in the ruling that set Trump back. The decision gives the House access to Trump’s tax records. But in a separate opinion, she expressed her misgivings about “the possibility and motive of Congress to threaten a sitting president after taking office” with requests for tax returns “in order to influence the president during her term in office.” did.
[ad_2]
Source link
