Legal expert: SCOTUS punting immunity question to lower court is actually 'bad news' for Trump

While former President Donald Trump may have viewed the Supreme Court of the United States' (SCOTUS) recent decision to reject Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith's request to expedite hearing his presidential immunity argument as a win, one legal expert suggests the former president may have more to worry about now that the decision is in the hands of the lower court.

In a Wednesday, December 27 column for MSNBC, Loyola University Law School professor Jessica Levinson wrote that should the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reject Trump's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution as a former president, Trump may be forced into a dead end.

"[T]he Supreme Court’s decision to wait for the DC Circuit to rule might actually be bad news for Trump. If, as many expect, the DC Circuit concludes that Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, then Trump will appeal to the high court," Levinson wrote. "But the court doesn’t have to take the case. By declining to hear the case, the DC Circuit court’s decision would stand."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

"The Supreme Court also could simply affirm the DC Circuit’s ruling without a full briefing and oral arguments," she added. "The Court’s decision not to intervene now could actually indicate there’s really no reason for their involvement because this is not a close call."

Because the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear oral arguments on the immunity question on January 9 — six days before the Iowa Caucuses — a decision on absolute immunity could come before voters cast the first ballots of the 2024 election. Levinson wrote that the three-judge appellate panel that will hear the case (consisting of Biden appointees Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, along with George H.W. Bush appointee Karen Henderson) "should acknowledge that Trump’s arguments do not present novel legal theories, but instead suggest a tired political ploy to indefinitely delay the federal criminal charges pending against him."

"Judicially created doctrines like presidential immunity serve a purpose. Presidents do not have normal jobs, and they are entitled to some level of protection. We want presidents to feel free to make decisions for the public good," Levinson wrote. "But we also want them to know that if they break criminal laws, they will pay for it. Because these presidents are, presumably, still presiding over a nation that values the rule of law."

READ MORE: Chutkan slams Trump in latest ruling rejecting immunity argument: No 'divine right of kings'

Click here to read Levinson's op-ed in full.