CNN
—
The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether President Donald Trump can claim immunity in special counsel Jack Smith's election destruction case, adding another explosive appeal from the former president to the docket. His federal trial was further postponed.
The court has expedited the case and is scheduled to hear arguments the week of April 22nd.
The move sends the front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination to another date with the high court, which earlier this month ruled that Mr. Trump would be granted a second term under the 14th Amendment. Arguments were heard in a separate lawsuit asking whether he was disqualified from running. “No rebellion.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court arguments come as Trump is on trial in New York on criminal charges of falsifying business records as part of a cover-up to cover up hush-money payments before the 2016 election. there is a possibility. (Mr. Trump has maintained his innocence.)
The high court on Wednesday ordered the lower court's ruling against Trump to be put on hold until a decision is made on the issue. As is often the case when granting a lawsuit, the court issued only a brief order and did not say how the justices voted.
A spokesperson for the special counsel's office declined to comment.
This decision is an important victory for Mr. Trump for at least two reasons. One would be able to claim blanket immunity for the president, which, if granted, would undermine the range of legal challenges it faces. It will likely be on trial for at least a few weeks.
This is the second time a judge has denied Smith's request. The special counsel asked the high court several months ago to take the case before the D.C. Circuit ruled, but was denied.
Had the justices denied President Trump's emergency request for a moratorium on the case, Mr. Smith could have acted more quickly, effectively guaranteeing a trial before the November election.
The court asked Trump to file opening arguments in the case by March 19. Smith's office is required to submit a brief summarizing its arguments by April 8, and Trump must submit written closing arguments by April 15 before oral arguments begin. held.
CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck said the court took nearly two weeks to rule on how to proceed with the case, suggesting there was some behind-the-scenes maneuvering. said.
“Surprisingly, it took the court the best part of two weeks to reach this outcome, and not a single judge publicly challenged the outcome,” Vladeck said. “The justices were unable to reach agreement on how to resolve the issue without sufficient explanation and argument.”
“It is difficult to see whether that will make it more likely that the court will side with former President Trump when ultimately resolving his immunity claims, but it certainly makes it more likely that the court will side with former President Trump, even if the worst Even in this scenario, the January 6th indictment would certainly be delayed by at least another three to five months. Even if he ultimately loses this case, it's a pretty big victory for Trump,” Vladek added.
Trump filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court on February 12, asking the justices to block a lower court's ruling that Smith was not immune from charges of election destruction. The former president argued that immunity was necessary to protect future presidents from criminal charges. Without that guarantee, he said, “the presidency as we know it would cease to exist.”
However, this argument did not hold up in lower courts. A 57-page unanimous opinion issued by the D.C. Circuit earlier this month rejected the immunity claim. Mr. Trump and Mr. Smith have submitted briefs to the Supreme Court on whether the ruling should be suspended.
Mr. Smith countered in his own Feb. 14 filing that Mr. Trump had not come close to meeting the threshold needed to suspend proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had already postponed an initial trial date, originally scheduled for March 4, as appeals courts weigh in on Trump's claims. But given the delays already, the trial is unlikely to start until May at the earliest.
The high court agreed Wednesday to rule on a relatively narrow but far-reaching question: whether former presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for their actions while in office.
Trump argued that a president may be hesitant to act if he fears the possibility of criminal charges after he leaves office. He said criminal charges against him in the 2020 election interference investigation, if left unaddressed, would have a “chilling effect” on future administrations.
But U.S. Circuit Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Florence Pan, and J. Michelle Childs rejected those arguments.
The judges had made it clear that the charges against Mr. Trump were serious and left no doubt that they believed they were prosecutable. They watered down Trump's alleged actions after the 2020 presidential election, saying they were contrary to the president and an attack on American institutions.
During more than two hours of oral arguments in a separate voting case on February 8, most of the justices indicated they would side with Trump on the question of whether he can run for a second term. Mr. Trump's challengers argue that Mr. Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, exempt him from the 14th Amendment's “insurrectionist ban.”
Taken together, these cases suggest that the court has largely avoided doing so since its decision in Bush v. Gore, which effectively decided the 2000 election between former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Al. It thrust the court into the middle of this year's presidential election. Gore.
CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz and Devan Cole contributed to this report.
This story has been updated with additional details.
