If the Supreme Court decides to allow the case to proceed, there is a question looming over whether it can be completed before the November election. While theoretically possible, many agree that the timeline is tight, akin to facing a challenge after a penalty in the final minutes of a football game. The prosecution could take steps to expedite the process, such as requesting a shorter trial preparation period.
There have been claims within Trump's circle about Justice Department regulations prohibiting trials within 60 or 90 days of an election. However, these assertions misinterpret the actual guidelines, which do not bar ongoing cases from proceeding. The decision on when the trial commences ultimately rests with the judge.
Merrick Garland could provide the prosecutor with significant discretion, but he maintains oversight within DOJ guidelines. While Garland has been cautious in taking action, there is speculation that he might intervene if the trial nears the election and appears overly partisan.
Tanya Chutkin holds substantial authority over the trial's timing, with Garland acknowledging that this aspect is beyond DOJ's control. If the prosecution seeks a delay until after the election, the judge would consider the motion. However, the primary responsibility for scheduling lies with Chutkin.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case in April raises questions about why they did not expedite the process earlier, especially considering the prior request from the prosecution. Despite the opportunity to let the D.C. Circuit's ruling stand, the Supreme Court opted to review the case, indicating a keen interest in the matter.
While the timeline remains uncertain, the D.C. Circuit's thorough analysis has set the stage for the Supreme Court's upcoming involvement. The legal proceedings are poised to unfold in the coming months, with various stakeholders playing pivotal roles in determining the trial's trajectory.
