The question of judicial timing has become crucial for the ex-president before the American election in November. The Supreme Court of the United States took up the question of criminal immunity invoked by Donald Trump on Wednesday February 28, further postponing the federal trial of the former president for attempting to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Targeted by four separate criminal charges, the big favorite in the Republican primaries for the November presidential election is seeking through his multiple appeals to go to trial as late as possible, in any case after the vote. The trial of the former Republican president for illicit attempts to reverse the results of the election won by Democrat Joe Biden was initially scheduled to begin on March 4. But the entire procedure was suspended while the question of criminal immunity claimed by Donald Trump was decided by the courts.
On February 6, a federal appeals court ruled out this criminal immunity. Donald Trump therefore turned to the Supreme Court to obtain a suspension of the entry into force of this decision. Special prosecutor Jack Smith, who is investigating the case, on the contrary urged the Supreme Court to reject this suspension request. He also recommended that she not take up the issue, but if she ever did, to set an accelerated timetable so that in the event of a definitive rejection of Donald Trump’s criminal immunity, “the trial can be held with a reduced additional time”.
In its decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court partly satisfied Donald Trump by not allowing the appeal decision to come into force until it had ruled itself. By scheduling the debates for “the week of April 22”, she on the other hand grants the special prosecutor’s request for an early deadline.
“Stay in power”
But most legal and political commentators emphasized Wednesday evening that it was a success for Donald Trump’s delaying strategy, since the Supreme Court’s decision further reduces the chances that the trial could take place before the election presidential, even if the nine judges rejected his immunity.
If he were elected again, once inaugurated in January 2025, he could order a halt to federal proceedings against him. The person also welcomed this decision on his Truth Social network. “Without presidential immunity, a president will not be able to exercise power properly or make decisions in the interest of the United States,” he reiterated.
In his written arguments, Jack Smith underlined the “unique national importance of this criminal case”, in which a former president is “criminally prosecuted for having attempted to remain in power by preventing the legitimate winner of the election from taking his functions”.
Donald Trump’s defense claims “absolute immunity” for his actions committed while he was in the White House. She cited Supreme Court case law from the 1980s regarding civil suits against former President Richard Nixon.
“For the purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump, with the same protections as any other defendant. But any executive immunity that might have protected him when he was president in office, no longer protects him against these prosecutions”, wrote the three appeal judges in their unanimous decision.