The United States Supreme Court has rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether or not Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office. This decision could likely delay Trump’s trial. The court has not offered an explanation for its reasoning, and there were no noted dissents.
Smith’s request was an extraordinary gamble asking the justices to skip a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue in Trump’s election subversion criminal case. The rejection of his appeal is a significant blow, allowing both sides the option of appealing an eventual ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to the high court.
The DC Circuit of the courts is set to review the issue on January 9 in an expedited review, but the lack of a fast track decision by the Supreme Court makes it more likely that the trial may not occur in March as scheduled.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, stated that “the real question is what happens then. Assuming the court of appeals rejects Trump’s claim, will it keep the trial on hold pending further review from the Supreme Court, or will it allow the trial to go forward and force Trump to seek a stay from the Supreme Court?”
In his appeal, Trump’s attorneys argued that the special counsel was attempting to “rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon.” The court’s decision is seen by some to be a significant victory for Trump, whose strategy of delay in the criminal case involving charges of election subversion includes mounting a protracted fight over immunity. This issue must be resolved before the trial can move forward.
The election subversion trial is currently set to begin in March. However, it is still possible that the trial could begin on March 4th, though less likely than before the court’s refusal to fast-track the arguments. According to legal experts, an eventual Supreme Court ruling may still impact the status of the trial with appeals to its ruling from both sides.