Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. As you may have heard, the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on Donald Trump’s far-fetched immunity claim, putting the federal election interference trial in doubt. That was the biggest but not the only action in Trump legal world this week.
Hitting that big news first, the Supreme Court could have simply sent Trump’s Jan. 6-related case back for trial but instead chose to get involved. The justices set a somewhat expedited schedule, with a hearing the week of April 22. We don’t know when the decision will come, but the court usually issues the term’s final rulings by July. That doesn’t leave much time for a lengthy trial before the presidential election. So even if the justices reject Trump’s immunity bid, they could effectively immunize him in the process. If he wins that election, the case is good as gone.
Speaking of the 2024 election, the justices still haven’t ruled on Trump’s eligibility to run in it. Meanwhile this week, a judge in a third state, Illinois, joined Colorado and Maine in saying he can’t be on the ballot. Like the other state actions, that one is on hold ahead of the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Trump v. Anderson, so the former president is staying on the ballot for now. At the high court hearing last month, the justices sounded uncomfortable with keeping him off the ballot, despite the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban. But is the reason we don’t have a ruling yet that they’re having trouble laundering that discomfort into a coherent legal opinion?
Down in Florida, ahead of a crucial hearing with Judge Aileen Cannon, special counsel Jack Smith asked for a July trial date, while Trump insisted he shouldn’t be tried at all while he’s campaigning. But if he must stand trial like a normal person would have to, then Trump and his co-defendants want the trial to start in the late summer, they said in a court filing. As I explain here, that sets up a…
Read the full article here
