“Bad news for Judge Chutkan’s March trial date”: SCOTUS rejects Jack Smith request on Trump immunity

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to expedite arguments on whether Donald Trump had presidential immunity from federal prosecution for crimes he’s accused of committing while in office in his federal election subversion case, CNN and Politico report. The high court did not offer any explanation for its reasoning and did not note any dissents.

The court’s decision marks a major blow to Smith, who took a massive risk when he asked the justices to skip a federal appeals court — a rare move — and quickly decide a key concern of his criminal case against the former president for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Both sides will still have the option of appealing an eventual ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, in which an expedited review of the matter is already underway. But the court’s decision hands a huge win to Trump, whose delay tactics in the criminal case included launching a prolonged battle over the immunity question, which must be settled before the case goes to trial. In urging the court against taking the case, Trump’s attorneys argued the special counsel was attempting to “rush to decide issues with reckless abandon.” The DC Circuit has scheduled oral arguments over the question for Jan. 9, 2024. 

National security attorney Brad Moss predicted that the matter “won’t get to SCOTUS any earlier than February now.” Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance added that the decision is “bad news for Judge Chutkan’s March trial date because even if the court of appeals rules quickly, Trump gets 90 days to file for cert, and he can ask for the full appellate court to rehear the appeal en banc, with all of the judges present, as an intermediary step.” But Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court expert at the University of Texas School of Law, argued that the issue is not a “big deal” because the D.C. Circuit Court is “moving very very quickly.” The “real question, assuming it affirms Trump’s non-immunity, is what happens *then,*” he added.