In a setback for

S

special

c

our Jack Smith, the

US

The Supreme Court on Friday denied his request for an expedited ruling on whether former President Trump can be prosecuted for allegedly conspiring to prevent then-President-elect Biden from being declared the winner of the 2020 election.

Without comment or dissent, justice

S

denied Smith’s request.

The D.C. Circuit Court has said it will consider the issue in early January, but the Supreme Court’s action will likely delay a final resolution of the legal issue.

Trump’s lawyers said the criminal charges should be dismissed on the grounds that a former president cannot be charged with a crime because of his “official actions” while in the White House.

But the special counsel said ex-presidents do not enjoy “absolute immunity” for past crimes and urged the justices to rule on the issue quickly so Trump’s trial can begin on March 4.

2024

.

In his call for a quick ruling, Smith made no mention of the election year calendar or Trump’s position as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. But many conservatives and Trump supporters said the Biden administration and the special counsel waited two years to bring criminal charges and now bear responsibility for any delays.

The immunity claim is one of two major legal questions about Trump’s conduct after losing the 2020 election that could have a significant impact on his bid to regain the presidency next year.

The justices will likely soon be asked to rule on whether Trump can be disqualified and removed from the ballot for “involvement in an insurrection,” a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Trump’s lawyers are expected to appeal a Colorado Supreme Court decision that would remove Trump from the primary ballot there.

The special counsel did not charge Trump with incitement of insurrection. Instead, he charged the former president with defrauding the United States and its voters and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding.

The Constitution does not directly say whether a president can be prosecuted for crimes after leaving office, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. That’s because no previous president has been charged with crimes.

The impeachment clauses say a president can be removed from office if two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict him of treason, bribery or “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives, but not convicted by the Senate.

In February 2021, 57 senators voted to convict him of inciting an insurrection that led to the mob attack on the Capitol, but a conviction required 67 votes. That ruling could have disqualified Trump from holding office again.

Although impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, the Constitution says that “the convicted party shall nevertheless be liable, and shall be subject to indictment, trial, conviction, and punishment, according to law.”

The special says this provision confirms that a president or other senior council official can be prosecuted for a crime after an impeachment.

Trump’s lawyers argue the opposite. They say that because the former president was not a “convicted party” in his second impeachment trial, he cannot now be indicted and tried on the same charges.

The closest Supreme Court precedent on presidential immunity involved President Nixon, but not because of the better-known dispute over the Watergate tapes. Four years after leaving office, Nixon was sued by a Pentagon whistleblower who was fired in 1970 for revealing massive cost overruns.

In Nixon vs. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that “a former President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages imposed by his official acts.”

The majority said this shield against lawsuits is based “on the unique office of the president and is rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers.”

Writing in a dissent, Judge Byron White questioned how far such a ruling could go. If the principle of presidential immunity is based on the Constitution, he said, it would mean that Congress “can provide no remedy for presidential misconduct, and that the criminal laws of the United States are completely inapplicable to the president.” I find this approach completely unacceptable. ,” and adds, “places the president above the law.”