'Major opening for Trump': How SCOTUS endangered Jack Smith’s election interference case

Despite all of his delay attempts, former President Donald Trump's trial in Manhattan District Attorney's hush money/falsifying business records case is well underway. Opening arguments in the case were presented on Monday, April 22 and followed by testimony from one of the prosecution's key witnesses: former National Enquirer Publisher David Pecker.

But it remains to be seen when Trump will go to trial in the three other criminal cases he is facing, which include special counsel Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago documents prosecution and two election interference indictments — one being prosecuted by Smith at the federal level, the other being prosecuted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for the State of Georgia.

In a report published on April 22, Slate's Shirin Ali details the problems the case Fischer v. United States may pose for Smith's election interference prosecution.

READ MORE:FBI notes reveal classified docs co-defendant would be pardoned under another Trump presidency: report

The U.S. Supreme Court, Ali notes, recently heard oral arguments in Fischer, a case involving a Trump supporter who attacked the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 and was charged with obstructing an official proceeding of Congress by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Ali explains, "At the heart of the lawsuit is whether the DOJ is overreaching in charging folks who participated in the violent insurrection on January 6, and so far, it seems like the justices are inclined to say yes, yes it is."

Justice Clarence Thomas, in Fischer, wrote, "There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past?" And Ali notes that other GOP-appointed justices "took a similar stance."

According to Ali, "Even though this case makes no mention of Trump, special counsel Jack Smith has also charged Trump under Section 1552(c)" of the U.S. Constitution.

READ MORE: Why Trump’s massive legal bills could 'hamstring his efforts against Biden'

Section 1552(c) states that anyone who "corruptly.… obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so" is acting illegally.

"If SCOTUS rejects the DOJ's use of Section 1552(c) in Fischer," Ali stresses, "Smith would likely have to drop at least two of his four charges against Trump in the January 6 case and reconstruct most of his indictment. That would create a major opening for Trump, allowing his attorneys to demand even more delays."

READ MORE: Legal expert: Why Trump's first criminal trial is 'bigger than Michael Cohen alone'

Read Slate's full report at this link.