The Supreme Court’s delay in deciding Donald Trump’s immunity case makes a trial before election highly unlikely, legal experts say.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the four-count indictment against Trump in August 2023, has accused the former president of conspiring to thwart his 2020 electoral defeat and the peaceful transfer of power to President Joe Biden.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Harvard University, said the Supreme Court has dragged its feet.

“it's obvious that the court has deliberately delayed everything,” he said. “It could easily have issued a ruling much sooner.”

Related

Last December, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges on grounds of absolute presidential immunity, which he argues completely shields him from prosecution for any actions taken while in office. Trump has argued the House has to impeach a former president and the Senate has to convict before an ex-president could be criminally prosecuted.

In early February, the D.C. Circuit upheld the judge’s decision and rejected Trump’s claim.

Chutkan also indefinitely delayed Trump’s original March 2024 trial date until courts resolved Trump’s immunity argument.

Trump then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in and offer justices’ “thoughtful consideration.”

In late February, the Supreme Court decided to take up Trump’s immunity appeal.

“It could have taken the case in December when the special counsel asked it to be heard directly, or they could have declined to take the case after the court of appeals quite comprehensively rejected Trump's appeal, so the trial could be over by now,” Tribe said. “Instead, the court has dragged its feet.”

Hofstra University constitutional law professor James Sample said there was “no legal necessity” for the Supreme Court to take up this case, and Trump’s “dangerous” arguments, in the first place.

“When you compare the Supreme Court's handling of similarly urgent presidential matters in the past, including Watergate and the Nixon tapes and certainly Bush v Gore, the delay that has occurred here is intentional, and it is destructive of our democratic process,” Sample said. “The D.C. Circuit’s decision was thorough. It was by judges appointed by presidents from both parties, and it was correct on the merits, the Supreme Court has effectively interfered in the political process for no reason whatsoever other than for the purpose of interfering."

Claire Wofford, political science professor at the College of Charleston, said it’s “certainly fair” to criticize the court for not taking up the case sooner.

But she added: “If you wanted, there are lots of people you could hold responsible for how long this is taking."

We need your help to stay independent

Attorney General Merrick Garland,........

© Salon