(Washington) – The US Supreme Court, which hears arguments on Thursday about criminal immunity invoked by Donald Trump as a former president, unless there is a major surprise, must prove him wrong, but the scope of its decision will depend on its speed in ruling. .
With its decision on February 28 to address this issue, the highest court in the United States also postponed the federal trial of the former Republican president for attempting to illegally reverse the results of the 2020 election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden.
Donald Trump, the target of four separate criminal cases, is doing everything he can to bring him to trial as soon as possible, at least after the November presidential election in which he is running.
The person concerned in New York, where he has been on trial since April 15 on charges of paying suspicious funds during the 2016 campaign, confirmed that “the president should enjoy immunity, and I have nothing to do with that.”
He added: “Without immunity, you will not do anything. You will become an honorary president,” for fear of “being accused once you leave your position.”
This trial in New York may be the only one that reached a conclusion before the vote. The most politically charged case, the federal 2020 election case being investigated by special prosecutor Jack Smith, is on hold until the Supreme Court rules on the question of criminal immunity for a former president.
“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. “In 234 years of American history, no president has ever been prosecuted for his or her official actions,” his lawyer, John Sawyer, said Thursday.
“Damage to democracy”
“This indictment is a historical precedent because of the seriousness of the alleged conduct,” the special prosecutor responds in his written pleadings.
“The gravity and scope of the damage the alleged crimes have done to democracy is unique in American history,” he insists.
The vast majority of legal experts expect Donald Trump to fail miserably, both in the first instance and then on appeal, despite the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, to which he appointed three of its nine members.
Stephen Schoen, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says he expects “a majority, perhaps unanimous, decision against Trump.”
He added: “But even if the court gives Trump a decisive and final defeat, I think the prosecution will have difficulty appearing in court before the elections.”
Because for the trial, which was scheduled for March and was postponed indefinitely due to the referral to the Supreme Court, the nine judges will have to deliver their ruling soon.
“There is one window left but it is narrow and it is closing. “They have to act quickly, and in this case there is a possibility that the trial could start in the fall, at the end of August or the beginning of September,” explains former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason, a criminal law professor at George Washington University.
He believes that “the court must take into account the fact that this is a unique case.” “We have never had a situation before where a defendant would potentially have the ability to have his indictment dismissed if he wins the election. Then there would never be a trial.”
“This is what makes it a very special case that warrants a really quick decision,” Randall Eliason concludes.
If elected again, Donald Trump, once inaugurated in January 2025, could order the federal proceedings against him to end.
“Total coffee aficionado. Travel buff. Music ninja. Bacon nerd. Beeraholic.”
