Legal scholar: SCOTUS rejecting Jack Smith’s immunity request “might actually be bad news for Trump”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny special counsel Jack Smith’s request to expedite a ruling on whether Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over his alleged crimes following the 2020 election could come back to bite the former president, one legal expert says. In a column for MSNBC, Loyola Marymount University Law Professor Jessica Levinson argued that the high court choosing to wait for the D.C. Circuit to rule on the matter “might actually be bad news for Trump,” especially if, “as many expect, the D.C. Circuit concludes that Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution.”

The Supreme Court’s rejection dealt a blow to Smith, while marking a victory for Trump in his apparent efforts to delay the federal case’s proceedings. But should the D.C. Circuit rule in Smith’s favor and Trump appeals, the Supreme Court “doesn’t have to take the case,” Levinson explains. “By declining to hear the case, the D.C. Circuit court’s decision would stand. The Supreme Court also could simply affirm the D.C. Circuit’s ruling without a full briefing and oral arguments. 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. 

“The legal brief Trump’s team filed before the D.C. Circuit this past weekend proves as much,” Levinson added, referring to the 71-page Saturday filing that sees Trump requesting his Washington, D.C. election subversion case be thrown out and, again, cites presidential immunity. “The big problem Trump faces is arguing that his allegedly illegal acts to hold on to power should be viewed as a president’s official acts. In reality, these actions are the last gasps of a candidate desperately trying not to accept the clear outcome of an election.”