The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – a move that will likely delay his trial.

The court did not explain its reasoning and there were no noted dissents.

The court’s decision is a major blow to Smith, who made an extraordinary gamble when he asked the justices to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly deciding a fundamental issue in his election subversion criminal case against Trump.

Both sides will still have the option of appealing an eventual ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals up to the high court, but the court’s move is a major victory for Trump, whose strategy of delay in the criminal case included mounting a protracted fight over the immunity question, which must be settled before his case goes to trial.

  • @Cuttlefish1111
    link
    11010 months ago

    They don’t even feel the need to explain themselves either. We truly need a revolution, French style, to fix this situation. It won’t happen until the grocery stores are empty

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1810 months ago

        The amount of Republicans that would go on killing spree because they don’t have their porn would be insane. Better they can’t eat than denying them hypocrisy.

        • UltraMagnus0001
          link
          5
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Especially the repressed, projecting Republicans that need their porn to get off on their LGBT stuff

    • blargerer
      link
      fedilink
      -210 months ago

      Given there were no dissents, its likely above board.

      • PugJesus
        link
        fedilink
        1910 months ago

        All of the court ascribes to “We don’t want to look political despite being very political”, and this is a cheap win in that area for them. ‘Above board’ is a strong term.

      • Ook the Librarian
        link
        9
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        There were no noted descents. This wasn’t a ruling. We don’t have 9 voices. It means that less than 4 justices wanted to take the case. It’s rare any desents in this type of decision would be public.