The future of several of the federal indictments against Donald Trump depends on whether Trump is given presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court has agreed to take the case on, and now the date for arguments has been set for late April.
Talking Points…
- Supreme Court takes the case
- Will Trump get immunity?
- Analysis
Donald Trump was hoping to exhaust all legal outlets before the Supreme Court took the case, but with the election right around the corner, Special Counsel Jack Smith pressed the court to take the immunity case now, and it agreed to do so.
Donald Trump has at least two federal indictments against him that will be impacted by this ruling. They are the two cases pending under Special Counsel Jack Smith. The classified documents case is being heard by Judge Aileen Cannon, and the election interference case is being heard by Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Both cases have been delayed pending the outcome of Trump's immunity claim. The classified documents case is currently being negotiated for a start date, with Jack Smith asking the court for a July 8 date, which is one week before the Republican National Convention, so it would still be going on, meaning Trump would have to fly from Florida to Wisconsin each day if he planned on attending.
The second case was paused by Judge Chutkan pending the outcome of Trump's appeals on the immunity case, so that is not likely to start anytime soon, as Chutkan will have to find a date that does not conflict with Trump's other legal cases.
To that point, the court has set arguments for April 25, and according to reports, the court has agreed to expedite the ruling, which means it could come just a few days after the case, but I would suspect it would be no later than June.
The court has weighed in on this topic before, and not just in the case of Donald Trump. The issue of presidential immunity goes back to at least 1867 but was more recently addressed during the Nixon Watergate incident. Even more recently, the Clinton impeachment also addressed some of these issues.
Through those rulings, presidential immunity has been narrowed down to acts performed as the duty of the president of the United States, not personal actions. For instance, when Obama ordered a military strike and a wedding party was hit, even though the intelligence was faulty, Obama would not be liable because he was acting as commander-in-chief, clearly within the duties of the presidency.
Donald Trump's attorneys will have to show how Trump's actions on January 6 were in the role of president rather than in the role of a presidential candidate. If they deem that Trump was acting to protect the integrity of elections, he would be granted immunity. Immunity will not be granted if they perceive his role as a candidate.
While Trump won his case to be put back on the ballot, I do not believe he will have as much success in this case. Had Trump taken a different tact for fighting the election results, my opinion would have been different, but the fact he held a rally, which is more like something a candidate would do, is the damning factor.
Trump had all the presidential powers to investigate the election. The fact that he chose a campaign-style rally instead will not help him in this case. Having said that, the fact that the court is taking the case helps Trump push back the other two cases, so even if he does not win the immunity case, the delay could be enough to delay these cases until after the election.
Regardless of how this all pans out, ignore the stories of the Supreme Court turning the presidency into a monarchy, as many liberal-leaning outlets and pundits have already started to do. This is just gaslighting and fearmongering on their part. Presidential immunity will never give blanket immunity to a sitting president for any and all actions. That immunity will only go so far as official acts as president. This case that is going before the Supreme Court is to examine one action, not all actions. Everything else being said is simply white noise to prejudice voters against the Supreme Court if it decides to grant Trump immunity in this instance.
