Supreme Court to take up trump’s immunity claim 4/22

ABC News…

”BREAKING: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Donald Trump's case that he is immune from prosecution in his federal election subversion case. abcn.ws/3IfuzNR”


x.com/abc/status/1762966233433964801?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw



Because of what this potentially means to this country instead putting this with the thread of trump court cases this should and is getting its own thread.

Democracy Docket….

“US Supreme Court Will Hear Trump’s Immunity Appeal in April, Delaying Election Subversion Trial”

By Rachel Selzer
February 28, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an unsigned order issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for April 2024 to resolve the question of whether former President Donald Trump is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The high court’s move will further delay the criminal trial in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election subversion case against Trump, which was originally set to begin on March 4, 2024.

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the question of presidential immunity follows a request from the former president seeking to pause a February decision from the D.C. Circuit affirming that he is not absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” he undertook while serving as president. In that ruling, a unanimous three-judge D.C. Circuit panel upheld district court Judge Tanya Chutkan’s December 2023 decision denying Trump’s motion to dismiss his federal election subversion indictment on presidential immunity grounds.

The Supreme Court’s order noted that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling will remain frozen pending its decision on the presidential immunity question, but specifically stated that the order should not be construed as “expressing any view on the merits” of the appeal. As a result of the order, the case cannot resume at the district court level and will not proceed to trial until the Supreme Court issues an opinion following its oral argument, which is scheduled for the week of April 22, 2024.

Legal experts have already expressed concerns about how the Court’s action could decrease the likelihood of a criminal trial occurring prior to the 2024 election. In a post on X, the Brennan Center for Justice Vice President Wendy Weiser wrote: “This is an outrage. In the case of accountability for #January6th, justice delayed is justice denied. Voters deserve a…full trial before it’s too late.”

In a brief submitted to the Court earlier this month, Smith urged the justices to deny Trump’s request to pause the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, given the “unique national importance” of the case. Smith emphasized that the “public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former President is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office.”

Meanwhile, trial is set to begin on March 25 in the New York criminal case against Trump alleging that he disguised payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election. The New York case is the first of the four criminal prosecutions of the former president to head to a trial.

In addition to New York and Washington D.C. cases, two other criminal prosecutions against Trump are ongoing in Florida and Fulton County, Georgia. The Florida case concerns Trump’s mishandling of classified documents while the Fulton County, Georgia case centers on Trump and his allies’ election interference in the 2020 presidential election. Across these four criminal cases, Trump faces a total of 91 felony counts.“


x.com/democracydocket/status/1762975083633471820?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw

Nancy Pelosi….

”The Supreme Court is placing itself on trial with its decision to hear the former president’s total immunity claim. It remains to be seen whether the justices will uphold the fundamental American value that no one is above the law – not even a former president.”

From MSNBC..

”Why a Supreme Court stay in the Jan. 6 case is so dangerous”

Deciding to review Trump’s spurious claim to immunity could result in much more delay than the justices may realize.

By Matthew Seligman, partner at Stris & Maher LLP and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law Center, Norman Eisen, former impeachment counsel to the House Judiciary Committee and Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21

Former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to further delay his criminal prosecution in Washington, D.C., while it considers whether to review his spurious claim of absolute immunity. Special counsel Jack Smith replied Wednesday, well ahead of his deadline of next week, arguing that there was no reason to grant a stay — but that if the court does accept the case, it should move quickly. With Trump quickly filing a reply Thursday evening, we may know soon what the justices decide to do with his appeal. Whether they agree to review his appeal or not, they should take every step they can to resolve the meritless appeal as soon as possible.

The question of whether the former president and leading Republican candidate in 2024 criminally interfered with the peaceful transition of power is surpassingly important. That is precisely why the justices must promptly deny his petition to review the lower court’s decision. Ensuring that Trump’s federal election subversion case goes to trial this year would let the American people know whether he is a convicted criminal before deciding whether to return him to office.

As Smith details in his filing, as a matter of law there is no overriding need for the Supreme Court to intervene. The D.C. Circuit’s tightly reasoned opinion definitively refuted Trump’s meritless claim of absolute criminal immunity. Its unanimous, argeted holding requires no clarification or modification: The circuit court made it clear that its ruling applies only to former presidents, thus heading off hypothetical concerns about a federal criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

Furthermore, every judge who has ever ruled on the issue has rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity. Under the court’s own rules, which treat conflicting lower court rulings as the most compelling reason for intervention, that alone is sufficient reason for the Supreme Court to deny review. And after last week’s oral arguments in the Colorado ballot case, the Supreme Court need not worry about appearing unfair by refusing to even consider the immunity appeal.

There are, on the other hand, grave reasons for the court to avoid unnecessary delay in the Washington criminal case. Determining whether Trump is guilty of attempted election subversion is critical to the health of our democracy. As one of us (Seligman) argues in a new book co-authored with Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, our legal framework for electing a president remains dangerously vulnerable to manipulation. The election deniers will act with even greater impunity in exploiting every loophole if Trump wrongly escapes criminal consequences for his last attempt.

That context makes it all the more critical that the Washington criminal case proceed to trial before the election. Voters deserve to know whether one of the candidates they are considering is a convicted felon. (Yes, the criminal case in New York, regarding alleged hush money paid during the 2016 election, is important — but it is no substitute for accountability for the more extensive alleged wrongdoing of 2020.) In the worst-case scenario, delay would even allow a re-elected Trump to order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him before a jury can make its ruling.

The Supreme Court’s granting review could result in much more delay than the justices may realize. If they put the case on their usual leisurely schedule, it might not be decided until the end of their term — as late as July. Add further months of pretrial proceedings and the case could easily drag throughout the peak general election season — or even beyond. For that reason, if they grant review, the justices must establish a process to ensure a prompt decision and subsequently a timely trial. The justices know how to do that if circumstances require it, as they certainly do here. The decision in Bush v. Gore, for example, was issued four days after the case was filed.

The fundamental reason Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is fatally flawed is that in America, we are all equal before the law. There is no realistic chance that the Supreme Court will ultimately abandon that principle in this case. The D.C. Circuit’s per curiam opinion demonstrates how inconceivable it would be for such impunity to be granted. Trump will lose, and the only question is when. Staying true to that fundamental guarantee of the rule of law demands that the court not delay a potential trial.

The court should not risk delaying the Washington trial until after Election Day. The best course would be to refuse to review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. But if the justices are not able to resist taking the case, they must proceed on an expedited schedule to ensure that the election interference trial reaches its conclusion in time for voters to make a fully informed decision.

x.com/normeisen/status/1762975183973843359?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw

Kyle Griffin….

”As the Supreme Court weighs Trump's immunity for his role on Jan. 6, a reminder: Ginni Thomas helped lead the 'Stop the Steal' campaign to overturn the 2020 election and attended Trump's Jan. 6 rally.

Clarence Thomas has not recused himself from the case.”

Rachel certainly isn’t mincing any words….

All in with Chris Hayes…

“This is B.S.—you were doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend," says @maddow on SCOTUS. "And for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it's something that's unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky."

x.com/allinwithchris/status/1763014265156346205?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw

This is starting to look like the actions of some corrupt third world country….

Southpaw….

”DOJ sought expedited review of the immunity issue last year from the Court. The Court refused, punting the issue to the DC Circuit, which took months. Then Trump appealed from that ruling on the same grounds. The MAGA majority then burned weeks before granting. Months more delay.”

”The handling of these petitions from first to last has seen the Supreme Court’s majority acting in alignment with Trump’s desire to delay his trial until after the election and possibly thereby escape justice.”

Peter Baker…

”Days between district court ruling against Nixon and Supreme Court arguments hearing appeal: 49

Days between district court ruling against Trump and Supreme Court arguments hearing appeal: 143”