Trump’s strategy in his four criminal cases has always been to hold off until after the election, then, if elected, drop the federal prosecutions and put the state cases on hold. Now, thanks to the almost comical delays in Trump’s Espionage Act lawsuit by U.S. District Judge Eileen M. Cannon and similarly blatant delays from the Supreme Court, Trump may get his way.
Cannon clearly favors Trump, making baseless arguments and holding pointless hearings (including a bizarre, hours-long hearing in which nonpartisan lawyers argued about issues that were already decided). Her delay in making a final, appealable decision has been widely criticized. No wonder her peers, including the Chief Justice of the Southern District of Florida, wanted her to resign. But is the Supreme Court majority any better?
“By sparing Donald Trump from being tried before a jury on two felony charges, three of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, plus MAGA Justices Alito, Thomas and Eileen Cannon, have already irreparably interfered with the 2024 election,” wrote Michael Podhorzer, a longtime Democratic activist and consultant. “Most importantly, a sparing ruling within the next few days, or perhaps weeks, would set the stage for a historic crisis.”
If Trump’s January 6 trial is brought forward, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan will be found to be interfering with the election. If she waits until after the election, it will be clear that the Supreme Court is already at Trump’s mercy. “It didn’t have to come to this. This case would have been decided already had the Republican majority not intervened at the last minute,” Podhorzer wrote. “It would have been decided had the Supreme Court not refused to rule on the same issue when Jack Smith asked it to do so last December.”
The dragging out of this case since Smith first asked the court for a ruling in December is evident from the Pentagon Papers (oral argument June 26, 1971, decision June 30), Bush v. Gore These include President Trump’s 14th Amendment disbarment lawsuit (ruled less than a week after the Court agreed to hear the case in 2000), President Trump’s 14th Amendment disbarment lawsuit (ruled 25 days after oral argument this year), and the Watergate tapes lawsuit (the Court took up the case on May 31, 1974, heard oral argument on July 8, and ruled on July 24).
This delay is even worse. In fact, most credible court observers do not expect the Supreme Court to find that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity.If the Supreme Court had simply upheld the decisions of the U.S. District Court in Washington or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the district court trial could have begun as normal. If the Supreme Court ultimately were to determine which acts qualify for immunity (rather than simply determining that immunity does not exist for an attempted coup) and devise a procedure for the lower courts to hear the case, it would undermine a judicial system that provides the public, as well as the accused, with the right to a timely trial.
Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe ( Bush v. Gore“The court could have taken on the case back in December, when the special counsel was seeking an in-person hearing, or it could have not taken on the case after the appeals court dismissed Trump’s appeal in its entirety, and the case might have been over by now. But the court is stalling,” and now the court is trying to buy time for a case that was argued nearly two months ago.
Even if the Supreme Court were to reject the blanket absolute immunity argument, its blatant delay would send a signal to Judge Eileen Cannon and other lower court judges that judicial manipulation through simple delay and procedural maneuvers is acceptable. The Court’s actions pave the way for widespread and deliberate manipulation of trial schedules in favor of favored parties.
All of this is happening in the midst of some of the worst scandals in the Supreme Court’s history, raising serious questions about the independence and integrity of the Justices (e.g., Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s flying of the rebel flag, Justice Clarence Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself despite his wife’s participation in the attempted coup, and Justice Thomas’ multiple financial disclosure violations and acceptance of improper funds). Millions of dollars These, combined with the apparent manipulation that benefits “their side”, will forever tarnish the reputation of this Court.
The Supreme Court’s egregious behavior only highlights the abuses of power that life tenure can lead to. For there to be any hope of restoring the integrity of the Supreme Court, voters, Congress, and the President must insist on rigorous ethics reform, term limits, and a rebalancing of the Court with justices who uphold judicial standards and ethics. The current cadre can no longer be expected to deliver fair, impartial, or timely justices.
