In the impending Supreme Court hearing, legal pundits anticipate a challenging path for former President Donald J. Trump as he contends his absolute immunity from prosecution concerning allegations of election interference. Despite his preference for victory, strategic losses present themselves as appealing alternatives.
One avenue of potential loss advantageously revolves around timing. The court’s deliberate pace in addressing the case renders each passing week increasingly burdensome for Special Counsel Jack Smith to conclude proceedings before the forthcoming election.
Another aspect, albeit less discussed, involves the prospect of the court’s ruling introducing additional legal complexities, extending the duration of the case resolution.
The indictment accuses Mr. Trump of various wrongdoings, including orchestrating fictitious elector slates, coercing state officials and the Justice Department, and directing supporters during the Capitol events of January 6, 2021.
While the Supreme Court is unlikely to fully embrace Mr. Trump’s broad immunity argument, the complexity of the case may preclude a definitive ruling.
Echoing a prior scenario in 2020, where a similar case involving Mr. Trump returned to lower courts, despite his loss, the delay tactic effectively served his interests, leading to a final ruling post-election.
In the upcoming case, the Supreme Court may adopt a similar approach, ruling against Mr. Trump but directing further analysis by lower courts. This outcome, although a loss on the surface, grants Mr. Trump a platform for delay.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the 2020 case, issued on the term’s final day, indicates a potential timeline for the current case, with a decision expected by late June. However, assuming a straightforward loss for Mr. Trump might be premature.
The court’s agreed-upon question—”Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office”—hints at potential complexities in the ruling.
Should the court reject absolute immunity but grant a more limited protection akin to qualified immunity, it may delegate further analysis to lower courts. Additionally, it may task lower courts with determining whether Mr. Trump’s actions constituted official duties.
Despite potential avenues for resolution, Smith argues for a prompt trial, emphasizing that even a recognized immunity should not preclude indictment trial.
However, should the court remand for trial, the distinction between official and private conduct may necessitate nuanced evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. Such rulings, Smith argues, should not be immediately appealable.
Yet, history suggests Mr. Trump’s inclination to pursue further legal avenues, as evidenced by his prior efforts following the 2020 Supreme Court loss.
As the legal saga unfolds, the intricacies of immunity, official conduct, and the pursuit of justice continue to shape the landscape of Trump’s legal battles.
