Trump's Respite From Trial Could Be Brief

WASHINGTON - Dec. 23, 2023 - PRLog -- Friday's Supreme Court decision not to take up Donald Trump's possible immunity for crimes allegedly committed while in office will almost certainly delay his scheduled federal trial while an appellate court first considers the issue.

But this court can and has moved very quickly on cases which might affect a presidential election, and it may well do so here, suggests public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who himself experienced how fast the court can move when it wishes to do so.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has already granted the Special Counsel's motion to expedite Trump's appeal regarding whether he has "presidential immunity" from criminal prosecution in the federal election interference case.

Oral argument is now scheduled for January 9th before a panel composed of Judge Henderson (appointed by George HW Bush), and Judges Pan and Childs (both appointed by Obama).

Although it can take months between oral argument and the issuance of the court's decision, in this case a decision might come down in days - just as in Banzhaf's case.

Indeed, he suggests that the three judges have almost certainly already carefully researched the issue, and may have written - and perhaps even exchanged - opinions; subject, of course, to possible changes based upon the oral argument.  They know the importance of timing, and may well wish to have the matter resolved as quickly as possible.

In his earlier proceeding, Professor Banzhaf had persuaded a federal judge to issue an order requiring the attorney general to apply for the appointment of a independent counsel to begin a criminal investigation of "Debategate"; a major political scandal in which it appeared that hundreds of pages of government documents had been illegally taken from the White House.

The documents were used by Jimmy Carter in his debate with Ronald Reagan, and it appeared that providing them to Reagan gave him a major advantage in his debate with Carter.

Thus a criminal investigation just before a subsequent presidential election could have important political consequences.

A challenge to that order was heard by the D.C. Circuit on June 20, 1984, and a written opinion in Banzhaf v. Smith (https://casetext.com/case/banzhaf-v-smith) was issued just days later on June 25th.

Coming to a conclusion and issuing a written decision was even more difficult in Professor Banzhaf's case than in the current one involving Trump, because the earlier case was heard en banc before all the judges, not just the three who will rule on Trump's claim of immunity.

So, says Banzhaf, this circuit court can move very quickly if it feels the need to do so, and this may well be one of those situations.

jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf