The most important words from a federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday were not the unanimous 57-page opinion rejecting President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution.
The ruling, which denied the former president’s attempt to exonerate him for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, was never in doubt. His argument is that the president is effectively above the law in all cases, not just in some cases. During oral arguments last month, his lawyers even argued that a sitting president cannot be held legally responsible for ordering the assassination of a political opponent.
It was easy to reject this claim. This logic “would put the president beyond the reach of all three branches and undermine the separation of powers,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote. “We cannot accept that the Office of the President continues to hold former presidents above the law.”
Important sentences appeared elsewhere. One page formal judgment Attach the opinion of the court. “The Clerk is directed to suspend issuance of powers of attorney until February 12, 2024,” the judges wrote. In response to those words, the court set strict deadlines for Mr. Trump to postpone games. He has until Monday of this week to appeal his loss to the Supreme Court. If not, a power of attorney is issued, meaning the trial court regains jurisdiction over the case and can proceed.
It both welcomed and condemned Trump’s strategy in the January 6 case to delay legal rulings. He is trying to use out his time in hopes of winning re-election and then disbanding the prosecutor’s office.
So far, it’s working fine. The trial, which begins on January 6, has already been on hold for two months pending a discharge appeal, forcing Judge Tanya Chutkan to cancel the original start date of March 4. Trials could become increasingly difficult as Election Day approaches It is difficult to hold a trial that can be completed before Americans cast their votes in the general election.
This is not an arcane legal dispute. Millions of Americans are anxiously waiting to see whether one of the two leading presidential candidates from the major political parties will be convicted of trying to overturn a free and fair election. A recent Gallup poll found that nearly as many Republican voters, 70 percent of all U.S. voters, would not vote for a candidate with a felony conviction. In other words, the outcome of the election could depend on the January 6 court case.
This is how democracy is supposed to work. People go to vote armed with all relevant information about the candidates seeking to lead them, including whether they have committed serious crimes.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of letting the American people decide the most important political questions. In this case, that means allowing the Jan. 6 trial to proceed as soon as possible.
The quickest and easiest way is for the courts to do nothing. As expected, if Trump appeals, six or more justices could vote to reject the ruling. That means the judge will refuse to accept the case and the circuit court’s decision will become final. There are several arguments in favor of this approach. Most importantly, as a legal matter, there is nothing in dispute about this case. Four judges on two courts, appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents, agreed that former presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for the conduct at issue here. Even legal scholars who advocate the broadest possible interpretation of a president’s executive powers while in office do not argue that a president is immune from criminal prosecution once he leaves office.
Therefore, this is not an issue that requires a resolution from the Supreme Court. The justices’ dockets are already filled with Trump-related cases, including a key case in which the court heard oral arguments on Thursday, including the former president’s role in the January 6 riot. The issue is whether or not he is disqualified from holding the office of president.
Still, it wouldn’t be surprising if the justices decided to take up Trump’s immunity appeal anyway. No matter how clear the outcome, this case concerns a central issue in American government: the power and scope of the president’s authority. In such cases, the Supreme Court often wants to make the final decision.
If judges choose that path, they should do everything possible to minimize further delays in the trial. We can conduct arguments and oral arguments quickly and issue swift and clear judgments. This is well within the judge’s ability, especially when a presidential election is at stake. The court demonstrated as much by deciding President Richard Nixon’s White House tapes case in a matter of weeks and Bush v. Gore in a day.
Second, the judge should lift his suspension from the district court, which would allow Judge Chutkan to proceed with pretrial preparations, such as resolving motions and selecting a jury. This is not an indication of bias against Trump. It simply upholds basic principles of justice and fairness. This is why the Supreme Court has held that, in principle, trials should proceed without unnecessary delay. It is in the interests of everyone involved in criminal justice, including in this case where, with only nine months to go until election day, significant questions remain unresolved regarding one of the candidates. That is a fact beyond any doubt.
Trump, who has spent decades avoiding responsibility for his actions in business and politics, may be under the impression that he is immune to the repercussions that most other Americans would face. unknown. However, legal immunity in criminal cases is different, and judges should make this clear.
Mr. Trump deserves his day in court. As the circuit court noted, he is now a civilian and is entitled to “all the defenses of any other criminal defendant.” What he has no right to do is play frivolous games in hopes of blocking the course of justice.
Source photo by bloodua from Getty Images.
The Times is committed to publishing Diversity of characters To the editor. Please let us know what you think about this article or article.here are some chip. And this is our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section. Facebook, Instagram, tick tock, X and thread.