WASHINGTON (AP) 鈥 The Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week with profound legal and political consequences: whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a federal case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
In addition to establishing a potentially historic ruling about the scope of presidential power, the court鈥檚 decision 鈥 whenever it comes 鈥 will undoubtedly go a long way in determining a trial date for Trump in one of the that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee faces.
A quick decision in the Justice Department鈥檚 favor could conceivably put the case on track for trial this fall. But if the court takes until late June to resolve the question, then the likelihood rises substantially that the November presidential election will happen without a jury ever being asked to decide whether he lost in the weeks leading up to the violent
A look at what鈥檚 ahead:
WHAT IS THE COURT DECIDING?
A straightforward but legally untested question: whether a former president is immune from federal prosecution for official acts.
Trump is the first ex-president to face criminal charges, making his appeal the first time in the country鈥檚 history that the Supreme Court has had occasion to weigh in on this issue.
Though Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, there鈥檚 no bar against charging a former one. Special counsel Jack Smith鈥檚 team says the Founding Fathers never intended for presidents to be above the law and that, in any event, the acts Trump is charged with 鈥 including 鈥 aren鈥檛 in any way part of a president鈥檚 official duties.
Trump鈥檚 lawyers, by contrast, say former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity. They warn of a potential floodgate of prosecutions against former presidents if they鈥檙e not entitled to immunity and say the office cannot function if the commander-in-chief has to be worried about criminal charges. And they cite a previous Supreme Court ruling that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, saying the same analysis should apply in a criminal context.
HOW DID THIS ISSUE REACH THE COURT?
The Supreme Court will actually be the third set of judges to address the question in the last six months.
Trump鈥檚 lawyers last October asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the trial judge overseeing the case, to dismiss the indictment on presidential immunity grounds.
The judge , saying in December that the office of the presidency does not confer a 鈥渓ifelong 鈥榞et-out-of-jail-free鈥 pass.鈥
An appeals court in February held the same, with saying that for the purposes of this case, 鈥渇ormer President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant.鈥
Trump appealed to the high court, which after several weeks, announced that it would consider 鈥渨hether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.鈥
WHAT ARE THE COURT鈥橲 OPTIONS?
The justices have multiple paths to decide the case. They鈥檒l probably meet in private a short time after arguments to take a preliminary vote on the outcome. Chief Justice John Roberts would be a prime candidate to take on the opinion for the court, assuming he is in the majority.
They could simply reject Trump鈥檚 immunity claim outright, permitting the prosecution to move forward and returning the case to Chutkan to set a trial date.
They could also reverse the lower courts by declaring for the first time that former presidents may not be prosecuted for conduct related to official acts during their time in office. Such a decision would stop the prosecution in its tracks.
There are other options, too, including ruling that former presidents do retain some immunity for their official actions but that, wherever that line is drawn, Trump鈥檚 actions fall way beyond it.
Yet another possibility is that the court sends the case back to Chutkan with an assignment to decide whether the actions Trump is alleged to have taken to stay in power constitute official acts.
A court ruling in Trump's favor should have no bearing on the in New York in part because that state-level case involves actions Trump took before he became president. And though Trump's lawyers have made the same immunity argument in a , that case accuses Trump of illegally retaining the records and obstructing efforts to get them back after he left office 鈥 rather than during his presidency.
HOW WILL THE RULING BEAR ON A TRIAL DATE?
How quickly the court moves after arguments could depend on how much agreement there is among the justices. Unanimous opinions almost always take less time to write than those that sharply divide the court.
If the justices rule against Trump and in favor of the government, the case would be returned to Chutkan, who would then be empowered to restart the clock on trial preparations and set a trial date.
Any trial would still be several months away, in part because of pending the outcome of Trump鈥檚 appeal. She鈥檚 also committed to giving prosecutors and defense lawyers time to get ready for trial if the case returns to her court.
That means that outstanding legal disputes that have been unresolved for months will again take center stage, not to mention new arguments and court fights that have yet to even surface but will also take up time on the calendar.
The trial is likely to take months, meaning it would likely threaten to run up against the election if it doesn鈥檛 begin by August. Smith鈥檚 team has said the government鈥檚 case should take no longer than four to six weeks, but that doesn鈥檛 include any defense Trump could put on. And jury selection alone could take weeks.
WHY DOES TRUMP WANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL?
The timing of the trial 鈥 and whether Trump will be forced to sit in a Washington courtroom in the weeks leading up to the election 鈥 carries enormous political ramifications.
If Trump secures the GOP nomination and defeats Biden in November, he could potentially try to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases against him or he could even seek a pardon for himself 鈥 though that is a legally untested proposition.
Smith鈥檚 team didn鈥檛 mention the election in its filing urging the Supreme Court to reject Trump鈥檚 effort to further delay the case. But prosecutors noted that the case has 鈥渦nique national importance,鈥 adding that 鈥渄elay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.鈥
Trump, meanwhile, has accused Smith of trying to rush the case to trial for political reasons. Trump鈥檚 lawyers told the Supreme Court in their filing that holding the trial 鈥渁t the height of election season will radically disrupt President Trump鈥檚 ability to campaign against President Biden 鈥 which appears to be the whole point of the Special Counsel鈥檚 persistent demands for expedition.鈥
