Following the Feb. 28 decision to rule on the issue, the US’s highest court postponed the former Republican president’s federal trial over an illegal attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, in which Democrat Joe Biden won a victory.
Donald Trump, targeted by four criminal proceedings, is trying through multiple appeals to be tried as late as possible, in any case after the November elections.
His trial in New York over suspicious payments in the 2016 election campaign began on April 15 and could be the only one with an outcome before the election.
The federal case involving the 2020 election, possibly the most serious, by special counsel Jack Smith, is on hold until the Supreme Court rules on the issue of a former president’s criminal immunity. The defense argues that without such immunity, a president could not “properly perform his office” and that no predecessor of Donald Trump has ever been prosecuted.
“This indictment is a historical first because of the particular gravity of the alleged behavior,” the special prosecutor replied in his written arguments.
“The severity, scope and damage caused to democracy by the alleged crimes is unique in American history,” he points out.
What legal experts say
The vast majority of legal experts predict a stinging defeat for Donald Trump, just like in the first instance and then in the appeal.
“I find it hard to believe that even this very, very conservative, very pro-Trump Supreme Court would be inclined to rule in favor of the position that a former president enjoys blanket immunity no matter what he does,” James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University near New York, told AFP.
“I think the score will be Jack Smith 1, Donald Trump 0,” he sums up.
“For the purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump, with the same protections as any defendant. But all the immunity that belongs to the executive power, which could have protected him when he was president in office, no longer protects him from these criminal prosecutions”, wrote three appeal judges in their unanimous decision.
However, in order for the trial, originally planned for March and postponed sine die due to the referral to the Supreme Court, to take place, it is necessary for those nine judges to rule quickly.
“There remains a window, but it is narrow and closing. They need to act quickly, in which case there is a chance that the trial could begin in the fall, at the end of August or the beginning of September,” a former federal prosecutor, Randall Eliason, professor of criminal law at George Washington University, told AFP.
“The court must really take into account the fact that it is a unique file”, he appreciates. “We have never before had a situation where an accused has the potential to overturn his own indictment if he wins the election. And then there will never be a trial,” he emphasizes.
“That’s why it’s a very special case that warrants a really quick decision,” concludes Randall Eliason. If re-elected, Donald Trump could, after an inauguration in January 2025, order a halt to federal criminal prosecutions against him.
Follow us on Google News
Tags: Supreme Court Debate Criminal Immunity Claimed Donald Trump Experts
-
