Supreme Court sidesteps decision on Trump presidential immunity claim in federal election interference case

Steering
clear
of
a
political
firestorm
for
now,
the Supreme
Court said
Friday
it
would
not
immediately
decide
the
key
issue
of
whether
former
President Donald
Trump has
broad
immunity
for
actions
he
took
challenging
the
2020
presidential
election
results.

The
court
denied
without
comment special
counsel
Jack
Smith’s
request asking
the
justices
to
circumvent
the
normal
appeals
court
process
and
quickly
decide
the
legal
question,
which
looms
large
in
Trump’s
criminal
prosecution
in
Washington
over
allegations
of
election
interference.

If
Trump
were
to
win
on
this
threshold
issue,
the
charges
would
be
dismissed.
If
he
loses,
the
legal
proceedings
in
the
trial
court
would
continue,
with
Trump
having
other
issues
he
could
mount
appeals
over.

As
a
result
of
the
court’s
refusal
to
intervene,
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
will
take
first
crack
at
the
issue;
it
is
scheduled
to
hear
oral
arguments
on
Jan.
9.

Once
that
court
rules,
the
Supreme
Court
could
act
quickly
on
whether
to
take
up
the
case.

In
asking
the
court
to
step
in
on
an
expedited
basis,
Smith
said
the
case
“presents
a
fundamental
question
at
the
heart
of
our
democracy:
whether
a
former
President
is
absolutely
immune
from
federal
prosecution
for
crimes
committed
while
in
office.”

Trump’s
lawyers
argued
in
court
papers
that
Smith
had
given
“no
compelling
reason”
why
the
Supreme
Court
should
immediately
step
in
ahead
of
the
appeals
court.

On
Dec.
7,
Washington-based
U.S.
District
Judge
Tanya
Chutkan denied
Trump’s
motion to
dismiss
his
indictment
on
presidential
immunity
and
constitutional
grounds.
The
case
is
on
hold
while
Trump
appeals
the
decision.

Trump’s
lawyers
argue
that
his
role
in
questioning
the
result
of
the
election
was
within
the
“outer
perimeter”
of
his
official
responsibilities
as
president,
citing
a
1982
Supreme
Court
ruling
about
presidential
immunity.
Therefore,
under
Supreme
Court
precedent,
Trump
is
immune
from
prosecution,
his
lawyers
say.

They
also
say
the
Senate’s
acquittal
of
Trump
following
impeachment
proceedings
over
his
role
in
events
that
led
to
the
Jan.
6,
2021,
attack
on
the
U.S.
Capitol
means
he
cannot
be
separately
prosecuted
for
the
same
actions.

Smith
argues
that
Trump’s
role
in
seeking
to
overturn
the
election
was
not
related
to
his
official
responsibilities
as
president
and
that
the
Constitution’s
language
on
impeachment
allows
for
separate
criminal
proceedings
even
if
the
president
is
acquitted.

In
August,
a
federal
grand
jury
in
Washington
indicted
Trump
on
four
charges:
conspiracy
to
defraud
the
U.S.,
conspiracy
to
obstruct
an
official
proceeding,
obstruction,
and
conspiracy
against
the
right
to
vote
and
to
have
one’s
vote
counted.
Trump pleaded
not
guilty.

The
election
interference
case
is
one
of
four
criminal
prosecutions
Trump
faces
heading
into
the
2024
presidential
election
season,
in
which
he
is
a
front-runner
for
the
Republican
nomination.