How the Supreme Court moved America 'a bit closer' to political 'Armageddon'': legal expert

29 February 2024

A major legal bombshell came on Wednesday afternoon, February 28 when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear former President Donald Trump's argument that he enjoys immunity from prosecution in special counsel Jack Smith's election interference case. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 22, and a decision is expected by the end of June.

This development delays the trial in Smith's case — a delay that, according to law professor and former federal prosecutor Kimberly Wehle, could doom the case if GOP presidential frontrunner Trump defeats President Joe Biden in November.

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on February 29, Wehle explains, "Donald Trump has just scored another big win in his legal strategy of delaying any accountability for his alleged crimes until after the 2024 election — which he gambles will return him to the White House and safely beyond the reach of justice. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted his request to consider overturning the unanimous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit holding that he does not have complete immunity from criminal liability for acts taken as president."

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that Wehle references upheld a ruling by Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Barack Obama appointee assigned to Smith's election interference case. Chutkan flat-out rejected Trump's presidential immunity argument, writing, in her 48-page opinion, that presidents in the U.S. do not enjoy a "divine right of kings."

Many of the legal analysts on MSNBC and CNN do not expect the High Court to agree with Trump's immunity argument. Conservative J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge and scathing Trump critic, told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace that he doesn't think the Roberts Court would have agreed to hear the argument if at least one of the justices didn't think it had merit.

Wehle argues that delaying the case jeopardizes it.

"So what happens now?" Wehle writes. "First, there's the matter of the timeline. While the Court could expedite its work, issuing a ruling soon after the scheduled April 22 oral argument, it seems far likelier that we won't have a decision until closer to the justices' recess in June. I expect that whatever opinion(s) emerge will be nuanced, and possibly fractured, which will give Trump's legal team new arguments for dismissing parts of the indictment — further delaying the trial date through the summer, and possibly past the election."

Wehle continues, "Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's decision to consider the immunity question gives Judge Aileen Cannon reason to delay the Mar-a-Lago trial, too, as Trump has asked her to dismiss that indictment for the same reason. What's far more certain than a slew of political prosecutions of former presidents? The terrifying use of the Justice Department to prosecute the people behind these cases if Trump wins in November. By taking this appeal, the Supreme Court has moved America a bit closer to that sort of Armageddon."

Kimberly Wehle's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles