In a significant development on Capitol Hill, Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to expedite consideration regarding the immunity of the former president has been denied by the Supreme Court. Instead, the case will now proceed to an appeals court in Washington, D.C., before potentially reaching the Supreme Court at a later stage. This decision throws into doubt the possibility of a March 4th trial date for the former president, as originally anticipated.
Special Counsel Jack Smith had sought speedy action from the Supreme Court by bypassing the appellate court altogether. However, the court's decision to adhere to the usual legal process has effectively upended the prospects of a quick resolution. Jack Smith has expressed a clear desire to have the case tried before the upcoming election, but this latest development casts doubt on the feasibility of such a timeline.
The Trump campaign is likely to view this decision as a victory, as it aligns with their strategy of prolonging the legal proceedings for as long as possible. It is important to note that the courts are not obligated to align with the political calendar.
Legal experts have weighed in on the ruling, offering their assessments of the implications. One expert suggested that this decision significantly benefits former President Trump, potentially pushing the criminal trial into the summer and delaying its start until the immunity issue is resolved. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the legality of two of the four charges against Trump in a separate case involving the January 6th protesters. This could further prolong the trial, possibly extending it beyond the November elections.
It is important to underscore the significance of the Supreme Court's refusal to fast-track the case. The request made by Special Counsel Jack Smith was considered extraordinary and bypassing the appeals court would not be in line with typical legal procedures. The unanimous decision by the Supreme Court not to expedite the process sends a clear message that they will follow the established course of action.
This latest development adds another layer of complexity to an already closely watched legal battle. The outcome of the appeals court review and potential involvement of the Supreme Court will have far-reaching implications for the progression and timeline of the case. It remains to be seen how Special Counsel Jack Smith will navigate this setback and how it will impact the broader political landscape in the lead-up to the elections.
