Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


Supreme Court agrees to review whether Trump immune from prosecution in federal election interference case

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution in the Special Counsel’s federal election interference case, an election-year dispute that will have blockbuster legal and political implications for the nation.

The justices have fast-tracked the appeal, and will hear oral arguments in late April, with a ruling on the merits expected by late June. Trump’s criminal trial has been put on hold pending resolution of the matter.

Arguments will begin the week of April 22. 

This will be the second time this term the High Court will hear a case involving the presumed Republican presidential nominee. Separate arguments were held earlier this month over whether Trump can be kicked off the Colorado primary ballot over claims he committed ‘insurrection’ in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots.

The high court was considering an emergency appeal filed by Trump to extend the delay in the trial stemming from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 2020 election interference case, arguing that he has presidential immunity to protect him from prosecution.

That request came just days after a D.C. appeals court ruled the former president and 2024 GOP front-runner is not immune from prosecution in Smith’s case.

The request was for temporary relief, to stay or block the appeals court mandate from taking effect, which would give the Trump legal team more time to file an appeal to the Supreme Court on the merits of whether a former president deserves immunity from criminal prosecution for actions while in office.

Smith, days later, requested that the U.S. Supreme Court reject Trump’s bid to delay his trial. 

Though the special counsel’s filing does not explicitly mention the upcoming November election or Trump’s status as the Republican primary front-runner, prosecutors described the case as having ‘unique national importance’ and said that ‘delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.’

The trial stemming from Smith’s case against Trump has been on hold pending resolution of the immunity question.

‘If the prosecution of a President is upheld, such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination,’ the Trump request stated. ‘Criminal prosecution, with its greater stigma and more severe penalties, imposes a far greater ‘personal vulnerability’ on the President than any civil penalty.’

The request added, ‘The threat of future criminal prosecution by a politically opposed Administration will overshadow every future President’s official acts — especially the most politically controversial decisions.’

The request states that 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.’

‘This threat will hang like a millstone around every future President’s neck, distorting Presidential decision-making, undermining the President’s independence, and clouding the President’s ability ‘to deal fearlessly and impartially with’ the duties of his office.” 

Trump’s lawyers added, ‘Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist.’ 

The decision comes after Washington, D.C., federal Judge Tanya Chutkan officially delayed the trial, which was set to begin on Monday — a day before the critical Super Tuesday primary contests, when Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Vermont vote to select a GOP nominee.

Chutkan said in December that she does not have jurisdiction over the matter while it is pending before the Supreme Court, and she put a pause on the case against the Republican 2024 front-runner until the high court determines its involvement.

Smith charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Those charges stemmed from Smith’s investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Enter Your Information Below To Receive Free Trading Ideas, Latest News And Articles.

    Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

    You May Also Like

    Editor's Pick

    LIVE OAK, Fla. — President Biden traveled to Florida on Saturday to survey the damage caused by Hurricane Idalia, part of a storm response...


    President Biden is asking his Cabinet to ‘aggressively execute’ plans for federal employees to return to their offices for work this fall after years...


    A group of House Democrats penned a letter Thursday to several top Biden administration and White House officials, demanding the immediate continuance of uninterrupted...


    Special Counsel Jack Smith proposed to begin former President Donald Trump’s trial in January 2024 for the charges he’s facing in relation to the...

    Disclaimer:, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2023