The Supreme Court on Wednesday put on hold former President Donald Trump’s federal trial over attempts to overturn the 2020 election, with the justices saying they want to evaluate his claims of “immunity” from prosecution.
The court said it would speed the case to its docket with oral arguments set for the week of April 22, meaning a decision should be issued by the end of June.
Mr. Trump has argued that he cannot be prosecuted for conduct while he was in office. To allow charges to be brought afterward would chill a president’s free hand, he said.
Lower courts have rejected that contention and sided with special counsel Jack Smith, who is pursuing the case.
The justices said they limited the case to one question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Mr. Smith had been pushing for a trial early in March, but the justices said it would have to wait until after their ruling. They said that shouldn’t be read as a statement on the merits of Mr. Trump’s or Mr. Smith’s arguments.
Mr. Smith had asked the justices not to hear the dispute. He said the country deserved a speedy resolution to Mr. Trump’s case.
“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” Mr. Smith told the court.
Mr. Trump, through his attorneys, said the prosecution and Mr. Smith’s speed were politically motivated. He said the sheer complexity of the case meant it would take a while for the defense to prepare, even outside the thorny legal issues of presidential immunity.
“The government waited nearly three years to charge President Trump, and now the Special Counsel violates every norm in a desperate, partisan attempt to bring President Trump to trial before the November 5, 2024, election and thus influence the election’s outcome,” John Sauer, Mr. Trump’s attorney, said in written arguments to the justices.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said the court itself will be “on trial” with how it handles the case.
“It remains to be seen whether the justices will uphold the fundamental American value that no one is above the law — not even a former president,” she said.
Mr. Trump defended his immunity claims in a statement saying if presidents can be charged for what they consider official acts, it would leave them open to “extortion and blackmail.”
“A President has to be free to determine what is right for our Country without undue pressure,” he said. “If there is no Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will ‘no longer exist.’”
At least four justices had to agree for the court to take the case.
Mr. Trump wants the Supreme Court to consider whether a president has immunity from criminal prosecution for acts performed within the “outer perimeter of his official responsibility.”
Mr. Trump’s attorneys said presidents make the toughest decisions of any official, making them easy targets for lawsuits.
“If the prosecution of a president is upheld, such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination,” they wrote in their filing.
Mr. Trump also asked the high court to consider whether the principle of double jeopardy prevents criminal prosecution of a president who has been impeached and acquitted by the Senate for the same underlying allegations, though the justices did not list that as a question they will consider at this point.
A grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted Mr. Trump on four criminal counts: one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., one count of conspiracy to violate civil rights and two counts of attempting to obstruct the vote certification proceedings.
The justices are weighing a separate case this term brought by Jan. 6 defendants who were also charged under the official proceeding obstruction law and who argue it is being misused to snare them.
Mr. Trump’s attorneys said that case is another reason Mr. Smith should slow down.
The high court is considering another case involving Mr. Trump and access to the ballot after Colorado attempted to remove his name over allegations he is ineligible to hold the presidency because he engaged in an insurrection.
A decision in that case is expected soon.
Mr. Trump says the cases are part of a coordinated Democratic effort to thwart his bid for reelection.
He faces four criminal cases up and down the East Coast while he campaigns as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination and a rematch with President Biden.
The federal election subversion case is viewed as the marquee case.
Mr. Smith secured the indictment based on actions Mr. Trump took after his 2020 election loss to Mr. Biden, including pressuring state officials and the Justice Department to find voter fraud, setting up a false slate of electors in states he lost to Mr. Biden, and leaning on Vice President Mike Pence to send the electoral vote counting process back to the states instead of certifying the votes in Congress.
Mr. Trump said he was acting in his official capacity when he tried to root out election fraud in 2020 and overturn the results. He said presidents must make tough calls all the time, and failing to grant immunity would spark a cycle of political prosecutions from administration to administration.
The circuit court rejected that argument.
“We conclude that the interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the executive branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation,” the ruling said.
Mr. Trump’s attorneys revived the argument in their petition to the Supreme Court, saying the potential for prosecution would overshadow every president’s official acts.
“The president’s political opponents will seek to influence and control his or her decisions via effective extortion or blackmail with the threat, explicit or implicit, of indictment by a future, hostile administration, for acts that do not warrant any such prosecution,” they wrote. “This threat will hang like a millstone around every future president’s neck.”
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.