(Washington) The American Supreme Court, which hears arguments on Thursday on the criminal immunity invoked by Donald Trump as ex-president, should unless there is a huge surprise prove him wrong, but the scope of its decision will depend on its speed in ruling .
By deciding on February 28 to take up this issue, the highest court in the United States further postponed the federal trial of the former Republican president for attempting to illegally reverse the results of the 2020 election he won. by Democrat Joe Biden.
Targeted by four separate criminal proceedings, Donald Trump is doing everything possible to go to trial as late as possible, at least after the November presidential election in which he is a candidate.
“The president must have immunity, it has nothing to do with me,” assured the person concerned in New York, where he has been on trial since April 15 for suspicious payments during the 2016 campaign.
“Without immunity, you are not going to do anything, you become an honorary president”, for fear of being “indicted once you leave office”, he added.
This trial in New York could be the only one to reach an outcome before the vote. The most politically charged case, the federal case for the 2020 election investigated by special prosecutor Jack Smith, is suspended until the Supreme Court decides on this question of criminal immunity of a former president.
“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. In 234 years of American history, no president has ever been prosecuted for his official actions,” his lawyer, John Sauer, argued Thursday.
“Damage to democracy”
“This indictment is a historic first because of the particular seriousness of the alleged behavior,” replies the special prosecutor in his written arguments.
“The severity, scope and damage caused to democracy by the alleged crimes are unique in American history,” he insists.
The vast majority of legal experts predict a dismal failure for Donald Trump, as at first instance and then on appeal, despite the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, of which he appointed three of the nine members.
Steven Schwinn, professor of constitutional law at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says he expects “a majority, and perhaps unanimous, decision against Trump.”
“But even if the Court hands Trump a decisive and final defeat, I think the prosecution will have a hard time getting to trial before the election,” he said.
Because for the trial, initially scheduled for March and postponed indefinitely due to the referral to the Supreme Court, to be held, the nine judges would have to rule shortly.
“There is one window left but it is narrow and it closes. They have 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,” explains former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason, professor of criminal law at George Washington University.
“The Court must really take into account the fact that this is a unique case,” he believes. “We’ve never had a situation before where a defendant potentially has the ability to have their own indictment dismissed, if they win the election. And then, there will never be a trial,” he warns.
“This is what makes it a very particular case which justifies a really rapid decision,” concludes Randall Eliason.
If he were elected again, Donald Trump could, once inaugurated in January 2025, order an end to federal proceedings against him.