In a development that surprised precisely no one and yet managed to fray nerves from coast to coast, the U.S. Supreme Court has added another high-stakes case to its docket, agreeing on Wednesday to decide whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for actions related to the riotous afternoon of January 6. Because what better way to prepare for a presidential election than parsing the finer points of executive accountability?
The justices will saunter into oral arguments during the week of April 22, taking their time like someone inspecting fine cheese at the market, and are expected to decide by late June whether a former president can be charged with crimes committed while in office. The decision will arrive just in time to either clarify the Constitution or send legal scholars into an existential spiral before summer vacation begins in earnest.
Donald Trump, who has long insisted that a president should enjoy blanket immunity for official acts, has managed to transform this legal argument into both a shield against prosecution and a central plotline in his campaign to retake the Oval Office. His lawyers argue that unless a president can act with absolute immunity, the office might as well come with a disclaimer and liability insurance.
Meanwhile, Special Counsel Jack Smith would like very much to proceed with his case concerning Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, mainly because he seems to believe that the rule of law still means something. Smith previously asked the justices to take up the matter in December with some urgency, which they politely declined, choosing instead to let the lower courts do the initial heavy lifting. Now, with the case back in their marble laps, the justices have decided that the timing is suddenly worth their notice after Trump’s arguments were so thoroughly dismissed in the lower court that even the footnotes winced.
“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” proclaimed the unanimous ruling by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which presumably will not be invited to Mar-a-Lago anytime soon.
While the criminal trial was originally scheduled to begin in early March, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case means a delay until at least the end of June, or roughly when Americans are either barbecuing or bracing for another constitutional crisis. The Manhattan criminal trial, of course, is still penciled in for late March, barring additional unforeseen encounters with judicial procrastination.
As for Trump, he predictably took to Truth Social to announce this development as a “BIG WIN,” proving once again his gift for rebranding anything with sufficient volume. And the rest of the nation once again held its collective breath, wondering whether justice deferred is still justice at all or just another season of Unresolved Constitutional Cliffhangers.
Because nothing says “land of the free” quite like waiting to learn if former presidents can commit alleged crimes without consequence.