'Too many ways for Trump to slow the appeals': Experts weigh in on SCOTUS denying Jack Smith motion

On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a one-sentence denial of Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith's motion to expedite hearing former President Donald Trump's immunity argument. The opinions of several top legal experts vary on how much this could affect Trump's chances of facing accountability prior to the 2024 election.

University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck tweeted a copy of SCOTUS' Friday decision, which read in full: "The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied."

"All this does is kick things back to the DC Circuit, which is already set to hear argument on January 9 — and will likely rule soon thereafter," Vladeck posted to X (formerly Twitter). "Then, we go back to the Supreme Court."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the immunity argument on January 9 will likely mean the decision of whether Trump can be held criminally accountable for actions taken as president will come right back to SCOTUS early next year. Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney tweeted that a three-member panel consisting of two judges appointed by President Joe Biden and one appointee from the George H.W. Bush administration will issue the DC Circuit's ruling. Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern opined a ruling from the nation's second-highest court may come sooner than expected.

"I would even venture to guess that the D.C. Circuit panel majority is already drafting an opinion that will be ready to go shortly after arguments on Jan. 9, at which point Trump goes back to SCOTUS," Stern tweeted. "A March trial is still feasible, but certainly more difficult to pull off now."

"Still, today’s denial is a somewhat bitter pill to swallow given SCOTUS’ willingness to grant cert before judgment when Trump, as president, was racing to halt lower decisions against him and his administration," he added. "The conservative justices were in a rush then, but not so much now."

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin tweeted that SCOTUS' shortly worded decision to deny expediting a decision on immunity "feels like an odd choice" given the Court's reputation as "an institution that has lost public confidence in part because of its opacity." She added that Smith's unsuccessful bid to have the decision expedited and lack of clarity to explain the need for urgency was due to the special counsel being hamstrung by the politics of the case.

READ MORE: SCOTUS gives Trump a hand as justices kick can down the road on immunity claim

"What Smith should have said is that the public has an interest not just in Trump’s speedy trial but in the holding of any trial at all. But he is bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of partisanship—and therefore, his briefs strained to explain the urgency," Rubin wrote.

New York University law professor Andrew Weissmann tweeted that the implications of the Court's decision to punt to the DC Circuit had particularly significant implications for the former president's scheduled DC trial on March 4, 2024. He argued that the key issue is whether SCOTUS decides to expedite its review of the immunity question following the DC Circuit's ruling in January.

"If it doesn’t, there are too many ways for Trump to slow the appeals process down to delay any pre election trial," he wrote.