Although the lawyers of Donald Trump failed to completely win the fight before the Supreme Courta, on whether he has absolute immunity from criminal charges based on his official acts as president, they did not lose it either.
According to the summary of the Supreme Court, this case involves two principles of utmost importance: the need for the effective functioning of the Presidency and the equally imperative need to defend the rule of law.
Despite widespread belief that the justices would respond by ignoring the former president’s request for immunity from prosecution, conservative members of the Court suggested there would be reason to consider at least some form of protection.
This would not only help Trump in his personal battle with the Biden administration’s Justice Department, but would apply to presidents to come.
What would happen if, in a future change of administration, an incoming president initiated a lawsuit against his predecessor for some action that took place while he was in the White House? Would this be correct or appropriate and even more so, democratic?
This argument was at the center of the Supreme Court hearing last Thursday.
Not only was it a fascinating insight into the thinking of some of the justices, but it was also a gift to Trump and his defenders because it raised hopes that some form of exoneration could be in play when the top justices make their final decision. in a few months.
Beyond this context, the division of opinions in the Supreme Court means that there will be a delay in decision-making and, consequently, a postponement of the remaining trials, in particular one of the thorniest related to the accusation that Trump attempted to interfere with the outcome of the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court returned the procedural immunity case to the lower courts for further examination on the merits of the matter.
Thus, it seems unlikely that the trial for electoral interference can be held before the November elections.
The question of whether immunity applies should be resolved before this trial begins, and even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling before November, it is possible to argue that a trial so close to the elections would be detrimental to democracy and the Constitution. .
Additionally, if Trump wins the presidency, he could dismiss the charges against him, according to several legal experts.
If anything, the Supreme Court hearing gave Trump new life.
What’s more, his appearance in the coming weeks in Manhattan court, facing 34 counts of corporate fraud linked to money allegedly paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels for an alleged sexual encounter, guarantees that he will continue to make the news.
Although Trump is unable to hold rallies during the week due to his required presence in court, this will not necessarily hurt him.
Election events have a predictable course and not all broadcasters will rush to cover them all, but, while he is in Court, all the media will be present monitoring whether Trump smiles, waves or grumbles.
The Republican has successfully presented himself as a victim and this is liked not only by his followers but also by the daily news headlines.
However, not everything moves to Trump’s tune.
The Supreme Court’s ambivalence over the immunity appeal will have no impact on the current trial, which is expected to last another five weeks.
If he is convicted of some or all of the 34 charges, big questions will arise about whether a convicted citizen can run for president.
The issue was reflected in the primary elections because, although Trump won a considerable proportion of Republican votes, many others continued to prefer Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, even though she dropped out of the race.
This suggests that some Republicans remain unhappy with Trump and his legal problems.
It’s possible that now the Supreme Court’s dithering on the issue of the former president’s immunity from prosecution could bring wavering Republicans back into the fold.
