[ad_1]
Former President Donald J. Trump is expected to file a last-ditch effort with the Supreme Court on Monday to assert his claim for complete immunity from criminal prosecution.
A federal appeals court rejected the request last week, suspended the ruling and sent the case back to the trial court on Monday, where Judge Tanya S. Chutkan will resume proceedings in the case, which had been frozen pending appeal. announced that it would be allowed. But the appeals court added that if Trump asks the judge to intervene by filing a motion for a stay by Monday, it will extend the stay until the Supreme Court rules.
This makes it almost certain that Mr. Trump will file such an application in the coming hours, and the Supreme Court will soon decide whether and how to proceed with his federal trial on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election. This means that they will be able to decide whether to proceed as quickly as possible.
You have several options. If the injunction is refused, the trial could be restarted. It could grant a short-term injunction and then deny the petition for review, which would effectively throw out Trump’s immunity claim and uphold the appeals court’s ruling.
Trump’s appeal could be heard quickly, similar to other lawsuits over his eligibility to serve as president. Alternatively, the case could be heard on its regular schedule, which would likely delay the trial after the election.
In other words, timing is everything. If the justices don’t act quickly, the case could be thrust into the center of the 2024 election campaign, or even push it past the election.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected Trump’s argument that he could not be prosecuted for actions he committed while in office, leaving him in the public eye. He said that he has become a normal citizen. Criminal law after retirement.
“For the purposes of this criminal proceeding, former President Trump became a Trump citizen with the defense of all other criminal defendants,” the committee wrote in an unsigned opinion. The president is no longer shielding him from this prosecution. ”
The commission, made up of one Republican appointee and two Democratic appointees, also limits Mr. Trump’s legal options and prevents the case from proceeding unless Mr. Trump asks the Supreme Court for an injunction by Monday. The case will be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The panel said asking the appellate court for a full review would not stop time.
The trial was scheduled to begin on March 4, but Judge Chutkan removed that date from his calendar.
The Supreme Court has already considered the case once, rejecting an unusual request from Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Trump, in December. Mr. Smith had asked the justices to bypass the appeals court and decide the immunity issue themselves without delay.
Mr Smith urged the judge to act quickly. “Given the social importance of the matter, the impending trial date, and the need for prompt and final resolution of the defendant’s request for immunity, attorneys at this time favor this court’s expedited review. .”
“The United States recognizes that this is an unusual request,” Smith added. “This is an unusual case.”
The justices rejected the request without comment or dissent, apparently content to leave the first clarification of the case to the Court of Appeals. The question is whether the Supreme Court wants to make the final decision.
In previous cases concerning presidential immunity, courts have weighed in and established precedent pointing in the opposite direction. Two of the cases involved President Richard M. Nixon.
In the 1974 case United States v. Nixon, the court ruled that Nixon, who was still president at the time, must comply with a court subpoena seeking tapes of Oval Office conversations, rejecting his claim of executive privilege. did.
Chief Justice Warren E. Berger said, “Neither the principle of separation of powers nor the necessity of maintaining the confidentiality of high-level communications guarantees immunity from judicial process under any circumstances, absent anything else.” “We cannot maintain the terms of presidential privilege.”
Eight years later, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of Nixon in a civil suit brought by an Air Force analyst who said he had been fired in 1970 in retaliation for criticizing cost overruns. By the time the court took action, Nixon had been out of office for several years.
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote for the majority that “Given the unique nature of the constitutional duties and functions of the president, there is no absolute protection from liability for damages for acts within the president’s “outer circles.” We believe it is appropriate to grant immunity.” It’s his official responsibility. ”
The appellate panel in Trump’s case gave more weight to the original decision, which involved a criminal case rather than a civil case.
“As the Nixon court explained,” the committee said in the Oval Office tapes, “total immunity of the president from criminal justice proceedings is a violation of the judiciary’s constitutional commitment to administering justice in criminal prosecutions.” “It would interfere with the primary duties of the above.”
The second decision arising from the civil case was less helpful, the commission wrote. “In considering the issue of presidential immunity, the Supreme Court has been careful that judgments regarding civil liability do not carry over into criminal prosecutions,” the ruling said.
[ad_2]
Source link
