The Supreme Court is about to have two Trump-sized problems to deal with.
Last Thursday, the justices heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, the case in which Colorado’s Supreme Court held that former President Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency because of his incitement of the January 6 insurrection. Based on the justices’ questions at oral arguments, the Court appears likely to rule in favor of Trump — on the narrow grounds that state courts are not the right forum to determine whether a presidential candidate is disqualified from office.
Meanwhile, Monday is the deadline for Trump’s lawyers to seek an order from the Supreme Court that could indefinitely delay his federal criminal trial for attempting to steal the 2020 election — potentially until after the 2024 election is over.
This attempt to delay the trial will arrive at the Court somewhat disguised as something else: a procedural motion in a dispute about whether presidents have a broad freedom to commit crimes.
Last week, a federal appeals court rejected Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution for any “official acts” he engaged in while he was president. This is one of the least surprising developments in modern legal history, because Trump’s arguments were truly outlandish. Among other things, his lawyer told a judge that the former president could not have been prosecuted if he ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” unless Trump were also impeached and convicted by the Senate.
It is exceedingly unlikely that the Supreme Court will buy this argument, which would be broad enough to immunize Trump from prosecution if he returned to the White House and promptly ordered the military to kill the justices themselves. Nevertheless, this broad immunity claim matters because it gives the justices a vehicle they can use to shut down Trump’s most important criminal trial — if they want to.
Why the fate of Trump’s election theft trial…
Read the full article here
