More than six months after a federal judge froze former President Donald Trump’s federal election interference case, the Supreme Court is poised to issue a decision that will guide the trajectory of the case, including whether the former president could be tried before the 2024 election.
The justices are expected to rule on whether a former president is protected from criminal liability for “official acts” committed during his time in the White House. Trump is invoking this immunity in an attempt to overturn federal election subversion prosecutions brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith.
Smith has charged Trump with four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold on to power after his 2020 election defeat. Trump has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing. The trial was originally scheduled to begin in March but was delayed while the high court considered the issue of immunity.
If the justices reject Trump’s request for absolute immunity and send the case back to Judge Tanya Chutkan, she could set a trial date in the coming months, though experts who spoke to ABC News cautioned that a trial starting before November would be logistically challenging and is nearly guaranteed not to reach a verdict before Election Day.
“The trial court should be particularly motivated to find a way to get this case to trial before November,” said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University.
Chutkan had initially scheduled a trial date of March 4, including asking potential jurors to fill out a questionnaire starting February 9. She officially abandoned that timeline in early February, as Trump appealed the case based on his claim to near-absolute immunity for his actions as president.
“The court will set a new schedule if and when the warrant is issued,” Chutkan wrote in a February order.
On February 28, the Supreme Court announced that it would take up the case. Trump filed a brief with the court to make his formal argument on March 25. In a filing dated April 8, the special counsel urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s appeal. The High Court heard oral arguments on April 25.
Chukan’s next decision will be largely guided by how the Supreme Court rules on Trump’s immunity claim. A clear rejection of Trump’s claims — either having judges clearly limit the limits of presidential immunity or determining that Trump’s actions were not official acts — could clearly pave the way for a trial, one expert said .
“It would be the simplest outcome for everyone, if the court adopted the special prosecutor’s position that there is no immunity for official acts,” said Jeffrey Cohen, a law school professor from Boston College.
By suspending the proceedings, Chutkan assured the parties that they would have the same amount of time to prepare for trial, approximately three months, according to the trial schedule at the time Chutkan suspended the case. Chutkan also kept a relatively free trial schedule over the next four months, with his next trial scheduled to begin on November 4.
That timing suggests a trial could begin in Washington, D.C., in late September or October, although the new proximity to the election could cause a further delay, experts said.
“It’s almost impossible, and it would expose the court to arguments that they’re interfering with the general election,” Cohen said of a possible September or October trial start date. “It seems to me that the defendant has a good argument that rushing things doesn’t do justice to his case in this case.”
While Trump’s team had initially pushed for an April 2026 trial, special counsel Jack Smith urged Chutkan to schedule the trial to begin in January of this year, arguing that a speedy trial would “justify the strong public interest.” Since the case was put on hold, Smith’s team suggested at a hearing in the Trump classified documents case in Florida that a trial within 60 days of an election would not violate the Justice Department’s policy of avoiding influencing an election.
However, the magnitude of the Washington, D.C., case, potential problems on appeal and the proximity of the election could discourage prosecutors from seeking even an early trial date, Levitt said.
“The Justice Department’s overarching mandate in exercising its prosecutorial authority is not to make a campaign story, but to try to separate the campaign story from the criminal story,” Levitt said.
If the Supreme Court rules that some of Trump’s alleged conduct is protected by immunity or issues an unclear ruling, Trump’s criminal case could be mired in further delays over the decision’s impact on the scope of the case or over evidentiary issues, said Bennett Gershman, a law professor at Pace University.
“There will be concessions in the opinion that will allow Trump’s lawyers to begin filing motions for a hearing, or perhaps multiple hearings,” said Gershman, who predicted that a trial before the election was unlikely. “I don’t think there can be a decision so clear that Judge Chutkan can just say, ‘OK, we have this now. It’s behind us. Let’s go to trial.’ »
Trump’s lawyers could also try to further delay the proceedings by appealing any future decision by Chutkan and seeking another stay.
“I have no doubt that Judge Chutkan will be very sensitive to the possibility of these appeals and the further delays in any decision she makes,” Levitt said.
In another high-profile ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday limited the scope of a federal obstruction law used by prosecutors to charge more than 300 defendants involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, including the former president Trump.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 6-3 majority, said the government must demonstrate in these cases that the alleged obstruction was related to “an attack on the availability or integrity » “files, documents or objects” used in the disrupted procedure.
The Justice Department had applied the charge more broadly in many cases, alleging that the physical presence of some rioters inside the Capitol alone constituted “obstruction of an official proceeding” under the law. . While Trump faces two similar obstruction charges for his role in allegedly obstructing the Jan. 6 certification, Smith’s attorneys argued last year that a change in the law would not have impact on Trump’s case because the indictment cites the former president’s role in the fraudulent certificates issued to the swing. States by so-called “fake voters.”
Friday’s ruling not only provides Trump’s lawyers with additional basis to appeal, but could also be used to seek additional time.
If the Supreme Court finds that Trump’s conduct constitutes an official act immunizing prosecution, Smith’s team will likely have to drop or significantly amend the case, according to Cohen, although he called such an outcome unlikely and “legally shocking”.
Regardless of the Supreme Court’s exact decision, the case will likely be back in the hands of Chutkan, who will have to navigate the new legal landscape sculpted by the Supreme Court and the historic question of whether the former president should be tried during the mandate. the heights of a presidential election, according to experts.
“It’s up to the judge to decide. The lawyers can make their arguments, but the judge ultimately makes the decision, and the judge can expedite things,” Gershman said. “Judge Chutkan is going to have to make a decision.”
News Source : abcnews.go.com
Gn usa
