www.washingtonpost.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
104.94.107.145
Public Scan
URL:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/29/democrats-legal-experts-supreme-court-trump-immunity/
Submission: On March 09 via manual from US — Scanned from DK
Submission: On March 09 via manual from US — Scanned from DK
Form analysis 1 forms found in the DOM
<form class="w-100 left" id="registration-form" data-qa="regwall-registration-form-container">
<div>
<div class="wpds-c-QqrcX wpds-c-QqrcX-iPJLV-css">
<div class="wpds-c-iQOSPq"><span role="label" id="radix-0" class="wpds-c-hdyOns wpds-c-iJWmNK">Enter email address</span><input id="registration-email-id" type="text" aria-invalid="false" name="registration-email"
data-qa="regwall-registration-form-email-input" data-private="true" class="wpds-c-djFMBQ wpds-c-djFMBQ-iPJLV-css" value="" aria-labelledby="radix-0"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="dn">
<div class="db mt-xs mb-xs "><span role="label" id="radix-1" class="wpds-c-hdyOns"><span class="db font-xxxs gray-darker pt-xxs pb-xxs gray-dark" style="padding-top: 1px;"><span>By selecting "Start reading," you agree to The Washington Post's
<a target="_blank" style="color:inherit;" class="underline" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/information/2022/01/01/terms-of-service/">Terms of Service</a> and
<a target="_blank" style="color:inherit;" class="underline" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/privacy-policy/">Privacy Policy</a>.</span></span></span>
<div class="db gray-dark relative flex pt-xxs pb-xxs items-start gray-darker"><span role="label" id="radix-2" class="wpds-c-hdyOns wpds-c-jDXwHV"><button type="button" role="checkbox" aria-checked="false" data-state="unchecked" value="on"
id="mcCheckbox" data-testid="mcCheckbox" class="wpds-c-cqTwYl wpds-c-cqTwYl-bnVAXI-size-125 wpds-c-cqTwYl-kFjMjo-cv wpds-c-cqTwYl-ikKWKCv-css" aria-labelledby="radix-2"></button><input type="checkbox" aria-hidden="true" tabindex="-1"
value="on" style="transform: translateX(-100%); position: absolute; pointer-events: none; opacity: 0; margin: 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px;"><span class="wpds-c-bFeFXz"><span class="relative db gray-darker" style="padding-top: 2px;"><span
class="relative db font-xxxs" style="padding-top: 1px;"><span>The Washington Post may use my email address to provide me occasional special offers via email and through other platforms. I can opt out at any
time.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="subs-turnstile-hook" class="center dn"></div><button data-qa="regwall-registration-form-cta-button" type="submit"
class="wpds-c-kSOqLF wpds-c-kSOqLF-hDKJFr-variant-cta wpds-c-kSOqLF-eHdizY-density-default wpds-c-kSOqLF-ejCoEP-icon-left wpds-c-kSOqLF-ikFyhzm-css w-100 mt-sm"><span>Start reading</span></button>
</form>Text Content
Accessibility statementSkip to main content Democracy Dies in Darkness SubscribeSign in Advertisement Close The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness PoliticsBiden administration The Fix The 202s Polling Democracy in America Election 2024 PoliticsBiden administration The Fix The 202s Polling Democracy in America Election 2024 TRUMP CRITICS, SOME EXPERTS VOICE FRUSTRATION OVER IMMUNITY CLAIM CASE By Amy B Wang and Spencer S. Hsu February 29, 2024 at 6:30 p.m. EST Former President Donald Trump waits to take the witness stand in New York on Nov. 6. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) Listen 8 min Share Comment on this storyComment Add to your saved stories Save Critics of former president Donald Trump and some legal experts voiced frustration after the Supreme Court announced it would take up Trump’s claim of total presidential immunity, a move that will further delay his D.C. criminal trial centered on his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.ArrowRight The trial judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had already rejected Trump’s argument that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while he was in office, and his D.C. criminal trial had previously been scheduled to begin this coming Monday. In taking Trump’s case, however, the Supreme Court also ordered Wednesday that his trial continue to be placed on hold pending its final decision. Democrats, as well as Republicans who served on the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — in which a pro-Trump mob stormed the complex seeking to stop the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s electoral win — expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision and its timing. They noted it would push Trump’s trial deeper into a critical election year. Advertisement Story continues below advertisement “Delaying the January 6 trial suppresses critical evidence that Americans deserve to hear,” former Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney, a Republican, wrote in a social media post that her fellow former GOP colleague Adam Kinzinger endorsed. “Donald Trump attempted to overturn an election and seize power. Our justice system must be able to bring him to trial before the next election. SCOTUS should decide this case promptly.” Follow Election 2024 Follow Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, posited that one of two things would happen in what he called an “epic self-test” for the Supreme Court: that the justices would “quickly follow clear precedent and constitutional text and dispense with the immunity argument 9-0 in time to permit the case to proceed” or that it would be “Bush v. Gore 2.0 with Republican justices stepping in to influence a presidential outcome by interfering in an ongoing prosecution.” The Supreme Court set a fast-tracked schedule for the former president’s attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors to file written arguments over the next seven weeks on this 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.” Advertisement Story continues below advertisement The high court is set to hear oral arguments in the case the week of April 22. All opinions are typically handed down by the last day of the court’s term in late June or early July before it recesses for the summer, meaning that Trump — who is marching toward the GOP presidential nomination — is not likely to face trial before summer at the earliest, if at all. If the Supreme Court rejects his appeal in May or June and agrees that he can be prosecuted, a trial could be rescheduled to start in about six to 12 weeks, still before the 2024 election. But if the court requires the trial judge to parse immune conduct from nonimmune conduct, all bets are off. And if the high court returns the case to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in July, it would force the Justice Department to decide whether to press for a trial — one that is projected to last six to eight weeks — to start around Labor Day and go to a jury in October, with mail-in voting already underway. “Maybe they [issue] the decision on April 23 and everything goes back to order, but maybe they dawdle on the decision for months and let Trump run out the clock on a properly indicted criminal case, not because of the merits but because they have intervened with delay,” Whitehouse told The Washington Post. What happens next after Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump immunity case Trump cheered the decision Wednesday, posting on his social media network that unnamed legal scholars were “extremely thankful” that the Supreme Court was taking up his case. Advertisement Story continues below advertisement “Without Presidential Immunity, a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. There is no deadline for Trump to face trial in D.C., but Smith has urged that the trial be held swiftly in the national interest — and Trump’s critics have argued that voters should have the benefit of knowing the judicial system’s verdict on Trump before Election Day. Trump has argued that voters should serve as his ultimate jury. If Trump is elected president in November, he could seek to end the prosecution. Legal experts had conflicting opinions over whether the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump’s case could be considered “slow-walking” proceedings in favor of the former president. Story continues below advertisement “This is a momentous decision just to hear this case. There was no reason in this world for the Supreme Court to take this case,” J. Michael Luttig, a conservative jurist and former U.S. circuit judge, told MSNBC on Wednesday immediately upon hearing the news, adding that the three-judge panel on the D.C. appeals court had already written a “masterful opinion” denying Trump’s claims of absolute immunity. Advertisement “The Supreme Court is capable of deciding this very quickly, in time that the former president could be tried before the election,” Luttig added. “But today’s decision makes that that much more unlikely.” Michael Waldman, president of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, was adamant that the court was “moseying” needlessly. He noted that the 47 days that the court has allowed for both sides to file written arguments is longer than the period the court allowed in Trump v. Anderson earlier this year, a case centered on whether Trump should be barred from the ballot in Colorado if he engaged in insurrection. Lawyers had 31 days in the Colorado case. Story continues below advertisement “It’s slow-walking. There’s very few other ways, in my view, to interpret it,” Waldman told The Post on Thursday. “This appears to be the approach that helps Trump the most while appearing not to.” Advertisement Waldman suggested that the court would almost certainly still rule that Trump is not immune from prosecution. “However, by dragging out the timeline, in reality they are making him immune from prosecution, before the election at least,” he said. Waldman pointed out that in the past, the Supreme Court has handled other critical cases dealing with the presidency with much more alacrity. In 1974’s United States v. Nixon, for example, the court heard arguments and issued a decision in a matter of weeks. In 2000’s Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, heard oral arguments and issued a decision within days. Story continues below advertisement “This case is just as important, probably more important, than the Pentagon Papers case, or the [Watergate] tapes case,” Fred Wertheimer, president of the nonprofit watchdog group Democracy 21, said Wednesday. “If they wait and issue the opinion at the end of the term in June, they likely will have knowingly prevented voters from knowing if Trump is a convicted felon before they vote. They will have rewarded Trump’s delaying strategy at the enormous expense of the country and the Supreme Court.” Advertisement Jonathan Turley, a conservative attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School, argued that the Supreme Court — an institution “often criticized as moving at a glacial pace” — was in this case actually moving at “a NASCAR pace.” Turley also said he still believes Smith has the upper hand on the merits of the case. “These cases on the state and federal level were brought after considerable delays,” Turley wrote in an email to The Post. “This case concerns actions taken almost four years ago. The Court did not create this potential collision with the presidential election. It has expedited the consideration of the case.” Story continues below advertisement In a post Wednesday to his Election Law Blog, legal scholar Rick Hasen said that he had assumed the long delay in Trump’s attempt to stay his criminal trial meant the Supreme Court was not going to grant it. Hasen also expressed doubt that, if the Supreme Court did not issue an opinion until late June, Trump would be put on trial during the general-election season. Advertisement “Early on, I called this federal election subversion case potentially the most important case in this Nation’s history,” Hasen wrote. “And now it may not happen because of timing, timing that is completely in the Supreme Court’s control. After all, this is the second time the Court has not expedited things to hear this case. This could well be game over.” The Supreme Court decision should not affect Trump’s state criminal case in New York. Story continues below advertisement Trump is set to go to trial March 25 in state court in Manhattan on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016, on the eve of that year’s presidential election. The former president has raised a similar immunity defense in his separate federal criminal prosecution in Florida, and his separate state trial in Georgia — it is not yet clear how those issues could be affected by the Supreme Court’s decision. Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report. Share 989 Comments Loading... Subscribe to comment and get the full experience. Choose your plan → Advertisement Advertisement live updatespoliticsChevronRight 1:48 PM BIDEN CHATTED FOR SO LONG AFTER STATE OF THE UNION, THE LIGHTS WENT DOWN 1:33 PMAnalysis: What was new in Biden’s speech 1:00 PMAnalysis: Biden’s SOTU campaign speech TOP STORIES Politics Reporting and analysis from the Hill and the White House Analysis|The California Senate race wasn’t ‘rigged’ either Analysis|State of the Union addresses don’t usually have much political effect Biden to propose new $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers Refresh Try a different topic Sign in or create a free account to save your preferences Advertisement Advertisement Company About The Post Newsroom Policies & Standards Diversity & Inclusion Careers Media & Community Relations WP Creative Group Accessibility Statement Sitemap Get The Post Become a Subscriber Gift Subscriptions Mobile & Apps Newsletters & Alerts Washington Post Live Reprints & Permissions Post Store Books & E-Books Print Archives (Subscribers Only) Today’s Paper Public Notices Coupons Contact Us Contact the Newsroom Contact Customer Care Contact the Opinions Team Advertise Licensing & Syndication Request a Correction Send a News Tip Report a Vulnerability Terms of Use Digital Products Terms of Sale Print Products Terms of Sale Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Settings Submissions & Discussion Policy RSS Terms of Service Ad Choices washingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Post * washingtonpost.com * © 1996-2024 The Washington Post * About The Post * Contact the Newsroom * Contact Customer Care * Request a Correction * Send a News Tip * Report a Vulnerability * Download the Washington Post App * Policies & Standards * Terms of Service * Privacy Policy * Cookie Settings * Print Products Terms of Sale * Digital Products Terms of Sale * Submissions & Discussion Policy * RSS Terms of Service * Ad Choices * Coupons 5.12.2 Already have an account? Sign in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TWO WAYS TO READ THIS ARTICLE: Create an account or sign in Free * Access this article Enter email address By selecting "Start reading," you agree to The Washington Post's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. The Washington Post may use my email address to provide me occasional special offers via email and through other platforms. I can opt out at any time. Start reading Subscribe €2every 4 weeks * Unlimited access to all articles * Save stories to read later Subscribe WE CARE ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY We and our 45 partners store and/or access information on a device, such as unique IDs in cookies to process personal data. You may accept or manage your choices by clicking below, including your right to object where legitimate interest is used, or at any time in the privacy policy page. These choices will be signaled to our partners and will not affect browsing data. If you click “I accept,” in addition to processing data using cookies and similar technologies for the purposes to the right, you also agree we may process the profile information you provide and your interactions with our surveys and other interactive content for personalized advertising. If you do not accept, we will process cookies and associated data for strictly necessary purposes and process non-cookie data as set forth in our Privacy Policy (consistent with law and, if applicable, other choices you have made). WE AND OUR PARTNERS PROCESS COOKIE DATA TO PROVIDE: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Create profiles for personalised advertising. Use profiles to select personalised advertising. Create profiles to personalise content. Use profiles to select personalised content. Measure advertising performance. Measure content performance. Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources. Develop and improve services. Store and/or access information on a device. Use limited data to select content. Use limited data to select advertising. List of Partners (vendors) I Accept Reject All Show Purposes